HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-20-1989 COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTS` .EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE:12/20/89
ORIGINATING DEPT.:Planning
AGENDA ITEM: F48
CITY. MGR. APPROVAL
04 4? _
SUBJECT: Appeal of V -89 -039; A variance to allow two free-
standing shopping center signs
Applicant:Cashin; Appellant: Nader
Location: 12029 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd.
Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council deny
the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
Report Summary:
The appellant is a tenant who operates the Chicken Salsa Restaurant
in the Blue Hills Center. The appellant had installed numerous
signs contrary to the City's sign code. In approving the design
review permit and Master Sign Plan, the Planning Commission re-
quired the removal of the signs as conditions of approval to which
the applicant agreed. The appellant is seeking additional signage
he feels is necessary to maintain a viable business in this loca-
tion. However, no acceptable code conforming alternatives were
ever presented for Planning Commission review. In the absence of
meaningful proposals from the property owners, staff cannot recom-
mend that Council modify the plans approved by the Planning Commis-
sion.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments:
1. Memo from Planning Dept.
2. Minutes 11/8/889
3. Correspondence
4. Staff Report
Motion and vote:
091TT o2 §&Mk1XQ)0&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor & City Council DATE: 12/20/89
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Appeal of V -89 -039; Planning Commission approval of a
variance and design review for center identification signs
Applicant: Cashin, et.al.; Appellant: Ken Nader
Location: 12029 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Summary
Application was made for design review approval to renovate the
Blue Hills Center which was granted by the Planning Commission on
9/13/89. A condition of that approval required the submittal of
a master sign plan for all tenants and center identification. On
November 8, 1989, the Planning Commission granted sign plan
approval for all tenant signs and a variance to allow two free-
standing monument signs directing traffic to center entrances.
The appeal was made by a tenant of the center who operates the
"Chicken Salsa" restaurant who feels that the approved signage
which required the removal of illegal signage is inadequate to
maintain his business.
Background
In discussing both the design review approval for the renovation
and the master sign plan, the Planning Commission expressed
concerns about the illegal signs at the Chicken Salsa restaurant.
As a result of these concerns, the Planning Commission condi-
tioned the design review and the sign plan on the removal of the
neon bars, chicken cut -outs on the equipment screen and the
unauthorized yellow awning. Since the construction is proceeding
to renovate the shops, all illegal signs have been removed from
this restaurant.
The appeal was made in response to both the City's and the
property owner's attempt to gain compliance with the sign code,
since the restaurant was required to remove what its operators
considered to be essential business identification. Because the
tenant felt that the signs approved by the Planning Commission
would be inadequate for his business, appeal was made to seek
Council reversal of the Planning Commission approved sign plan to
allow greater identification and to allow the previous installed
illegal signs.
1
Proiect Description
The sign plan is composed of two elements: one tenant sign locat-
ed on each store front and center identification signs.
The tenant signs approved by the Planning Commission are inter-
nally illuminated individual cut -out letters made of white plas-
tic. Each letter is 12" in height and will be located on the
soffit above each store frontage. The signs conform with the
City's sign standards which allow total signage to be a maximum
of 1/2 foot in area for each foot of store frontage.
The monument signs are designed to identify the center and will
also contain limited tenant identification. The signs are locat-
ed adjacent to driveways on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. and Prospect
Rd., since the site has frontage on both streets. Each sign is
brown concrete with white cast aluminum letters. Each sign will
be externally illuminated with spot lights located in landscape
planters. For comparison purposes, the monument signs are simi-
lar to the Saratoga office center at Saratoga Avenue and Cox.
A variance is required for the second monument sign. The sign
code allows one freestanding sign for centers having five or more
tenants on one site. Because the site has two distinct frontages
and both signs will not be visible from the same vantage point,
the Planning Commission determined that the additional sign would
not detract from the character of this area. Further, the Plan-
ning Commission concluded that the additional directional sign
would assist drivers in locating driveways which would promote
traffic safety.
In considering the sign plan, the appellants did not express
concerns regarding inadequate signage. The owner's representa-
tive worked directly with the Planning staff and the Commission
in devising acceptable sign plan. The architect represented the
owners intentions to devise a sign plan that would maintain
economic viability as well as meet the City objectives to main-
tain a quality visual environment. At no time was the Planning
Commission asked to review increased signage for the appellant's
location nor was the Planning Commission asked to approve the
illegally installed restaurant signs.
Analysis
The signs illegally installed by the tenant and now removed, are
inconsistent with staff's notion of acceptable signage for this
location. The site is at the entrance to the City and should be
treated with a degree of sensitivity to maintain a quality ap-
pearance and image. However, staff is also aware of the needs of
business persons needs for adequate identification to maintain a
viable concern.
2
Staff feels that the issues of the appeal relate to site specific
concerns which the Planning Commission was not asked to address.
Although the Master Sign Plan and variance was approved and the
renovation is currently underway, denial of the appeal will not
preclude the tenant and the owner from devising an acceptable
sign plan for presentation to the Planning Commission. Because
no specific signs other than the ones installed without permits
have ever been submitted, staff is unable to recommend that the
Council uphold the appeal and grant any deviation from the Plan-
ning Commission's Master Plan.
Recommendation
In the absence of a specific proposal for alternative signs for
the appellant's storefront, staff cannot recommend reversal of
the Planning Commission decision to grant the variance and the
Master Sign Plan.
Step en ERfslie
Planning Director
SE /dsc
Attachments
3
r
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 8, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS ontinue
Commissioner Kolstad stepped down on the following item.
Page 11
16. V -89 -039 Cashin, 12029 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd., request for sign program
approval and a variance from Ordinance 15- 30.100 to allow two
free - standing signs on the site where only one is allowed. The
property is located in the C -N zone district.
--------------------------------------------------------
Planner Graff presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated November 8,
1989.
Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:32 p.m.
The Applicant was present to respond to questions.
Commissioner Harris stated she had a concern about the signs at the Chicken Salsa
Restaurant.
The Applicant stated that they are attempting to restrain the Chicken Salsa owners
but they are not cooperating and requested support from the City to deal with
Chicken Salsa.
City Attorney Toppel asked the architect to relate to the owner that as far as the
City Attorney's Office is concerned the banner is illegal, and the City would begin
to issue citations and begin prosecuting.
Commissioner Moran asked about the yellow awning placed on the building. City
Attorney Toppel said that the awning could be viewed as a decorative feature because
there is no writing on it. If the Commission wants to prohibit the awning, he
suggested that it be covered in the sign program.
Planning Director Emslie stated that the awning was
reviewed. The awning was installed after the remo,
direct violation of the exhibits that were approved
in a misdemeanor violation of the Municipal Code.
Toppel made numerous requests and have visited the
been unsuccessful in having the banner removed.
not covered when the permit was
Jel work was approved and is in
by the Commission which results
He said he and City Attorney
owner of the business and have
City Attorney Toppel said he would discuss the matter further with Planning Director
Emslie. He said that in Item 16 a specific reference should be made to °,�.el de-
banners and awnings.X
Chairperson Siegfried requested that a letter be sent to the Applicant and to the
restaurant owner. City Attorney Toppel suggested that a citation be issued the next
day since the City has already told him to take down the banner.
HARRIS /MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:37 P.M. Passed 5 -0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page
NOVEMBER 8, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Co ntinued
HARRIS /BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE V -89 -039 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION ADDING THAT SAFETY
WILL BE IMPROVED AT THE INTERSECTION AND THAT ALL SIGNS AND BANNERS WILL BE
fin. Passed 5 -0.
Commissioner Kolstad was reseated on the Commission.
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS:
1. Memorandum cancelling the Planning Commission meetings of 11/22/89 and 12/27/89.
2. Upcoming planning applications and projects.
COMMISSION ITEMS:
1. City Council Report
Commission Tappan reported on the City Council Meeting of November 1, 1989.
Planning Director Emslie requested that the Commission adjourn the meeting to the
Study Session of November 28 in order for the Commission to take action to approve
the variance on the Vel ensk}�property; a Public Hearing will be advertised.
COMMUNICATIONS: //
Written:
1. Heritage Preservation minutes from 10/4/89
Oral by Commission:
Chairperson Siegfried noted that this was Planner Graff's last meeting. Chairperson
Siegfried acknowledged Planner Graff and thanked him for his good work.
ADJOURNMENT:
The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. to November 28,
1989.
Respectfully submitted,
J&
Rebe ca S. Cuffman
Data Received: 11-Z�l
Hearing Date : 12,-2°'`,'9
Fee��
CITY USE
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant:
Address: �%f�� �l�Pisl� /1.5 �� •��S
2-5 3 --
Telephone:
Name of Applicant:S
Project File No.:
Project Address: ?;��
Project Description: _ ✓�- �S�.�' C L��
Decision Being Appealed:
���u,LUzo ror the Appeal (Letter may be attached) :
j
Pe ant s ignature
*Please do not sign this a
City offices. If pplication until it is presented at the
you wish specific
appeal please list theca on a separate sheetto be notified of this
TITS APP? „iC,%TTON MUST DI. SUMMED 11TVIIN TEN 10) CALL•r1DAR DAY
I L 11' L- U• E U L- lr�$ I S O r
0.
of SSA R
1:3777 FRUITVINLE ,-VENUE . SAR,vTOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
14081 867-3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
Emmett Cashin David Moyles
950 Tower Lane Donald Peterson
20th Floor Francis Stutzman
Foster City, CA 94404
ATTN: Vince
Dear Mr. Cashin:
Please be advised that the Planning Commission's approval of your
Design Review Permit (DR -89 -055) is conditioned on the removal of
signs currently in violation of the City Code. Specific refer-
ence was made by the Planning Commission to remove the following
sign and design violations at tenant currently conducting busi-
ness as "Chicken Salsa":
1. the neon signs in the display windows;
2. all banners displayed on the building exterior including the
banners attached to the construction scaffolding;
3. the chicken logo displayed on the equipment screen located on
the roof;
4. the yellow awning on the north elevation.
Failure to comply with the Planning Commission conditions will
mean that the construction of the project will be order to stop
until the center is brought into conformance with the City's Sign
and Design standards.
Furthermore, your sign program recently approved by the Planning
Commission has been appealed by the tenants of the "Chicken
Salsa". Until the appeal is heard and qecided by the City Coun-
cil at its December 20th meeting, no gns can be installed for
any tenant.
S' ere , /��
Step en slie
Plannin Director
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM Tsvia Adar
DATE 11/8/89 PLNG. DIR. APPRV.
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: V -89 -039, •12029 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd
APPUCANT /OWNER: Cashin
APN: 366 -22 -022 Q
N
II �
File No. V -89 -039; 12 9 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed:
10/5/89
Application complete:
10/14/89
Notice published:
10/25/89
Mailing completed:
10/19/89
Posting completed:
10/20/89
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a sign program approval
for Blue Hills Shopping Center, in the C -N zoning district. As part
of the program, the applicant also requests variance approval from
Ordinance 15- 30.100, to allow two free standing identification signs
where only one is allowed on a single site.
The proposed sign program and free standing signs were continued
from the 9/13/89 Planning Commission meeting. The proposed signs
were presented to the Committee -of- the -Whole at 10/3/89. The
Commission was satisfied with the proposed program and the free
standing signs.
PROJECT DISCUSSION: The proposed signs on the building fascias
comply with the sign ordinance and is compatible with the character
of the shopping center and the signs in other shopping centers
within the City.
The proposed free standing signs are located
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road, a
gasoline station and identify different uses.
conditions which can be grounds for variance
standing signs on a single site. Staff is
required variance findings.
on different streets,
nd are separated by the
These are exceptional
approval for two free
able to make all the
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the proposed sign program and the
variance applications by adopting Resolution V -89 -039.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution V -89 -039
3. Specification for lighting features and style of letters for the
free standing signs.
4. Plans, Exhibit A
kim3
File No. V -89 -039; 12, 9 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: C -N GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: PDM
PARCEL SIZE: 2.5 acres
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 2%
MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED:
Sign on Building Fascia:
Materials: aluminum, translucent plastic
Size: 12 in. high
Color: white face /bronze aluminum housing
Freestanding Signs:
Materials: concrete with sand blast texture for
Surface mounted cast aluminum letters.
Size: 6 in. high; 7 1/8 in. wide
Color: White
sign bases.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes a sign program for Blue
Hills Shopping Center. The program includes signs on the fascia of
the retail building and two free standing signs. No signs are
proposed on the office building fascia.
The identification signs on the building consist of individual
internally illuminated letters affixed to the fascia. The proposed
materials are bronze aluminum housing and white translucent plastic
for the face of the letters. The letters are 12 in. high. This
type of sign is typical of other shopping centers in the City, and
is compatible with the building character.
The freestanding signs are proposed to be located, at Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road and the other at Prospect Road. The sign at
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road will identify Blue Hills Shopping Center
and Fox and Carskadon name and logo. The sign at Prospect Road will
include the name of the three tenants in the office building.
Both signs will have a concrete base, brown color, with cast
aluminum letters mounted on the concrete surface. The concrete base
is proposed to be treated with light sand blast texture. The
illumination of the signs will be external.
The proposed signs are compatible with the character of the shopping
center in materials and colors and will not stand out. Staff
recommends the planting of small shrubs and flowers around the
sign bases to blend the signs with the landscaping.
File No. V -89 -039; 12u -9 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
Although the proposed lighting for the free
external and are not expected to result in ex,
recommends the Planning Commission review
installment of the light features and have the
reduction in the light intensity if necessary.
requirement was incorporate in the resolution.
standing signs are
:essive glare, staff
the sign after the
authority to require
A condition for this
The proposed signs are compatible with the character of the signs in
other shopping centers within the City. Except for the variance for
a second monument sign, the proposed signs meet with all the City's
sign regulation and comply with the sign criteria pursuant to
Ordinance 15- 30.070 to the City Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the requested sign program and the variance
application for a second free standing sign by adopting Resolution
V -89 -039.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. r7__n1 AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: December 20, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services
SUBJECT: Development of Draft "Party Ordinances" for Saratoga
Recommended Motion: In accordance with the recOmmendations of the
Commission, direct the City Attorney to pre Public Safety
after the Los Gatos Town ordinances relating e �'�° draft ordinances modeled
and second police re creating juveniles i possession of alcohol
to the Public Safety COnr issionpfor1forwaardin a public nuisance; to be presented
g � the City Council.
Report Summary
The team "Party ordinance" was coined to describe locally developed ordinances
dealing with parties (primarily but not exclusive
out of hand, -and ultimately create a public nuisance juvenile in nature) which get
repeated attention from law enforcement i times, the
a state of well being. Aware that many oth r California return cities lghborry°°d to
in Santa Clara County) had adopted such (including some
sion identified the issue as one they would party ordinances, Public Safety Comrtis-
their' January, 1989 retreat. In re Program at
Commission spouse � City Council direction in June, the
began actively pursuing the matter. The Commission then reviewed
statistical information from the Sheriff's Office and concluded that Saratoga did
have a problem with juvenile parties (especially those involvin the cons
of alcohol), In October., Police Chiefs from Santa Clara valley cities which have Party ordinances were .cited to attend the Commission's meeting to discuss the
development and application of the ordinances within their jurisdictions. In
November, the Commission decided to recommend the developrent
for Saratoga modeled after ordinances already Ios of a party ordinance
The first ios Gatos ordinance creates a civil mechanism whereby s Gatos.
its costs for responding to a party a second time the at t can collect
Police services are functioning in effect as private security forcesa for the party
which should not be financed by the taxpayer. The second ordinance
misdemeanor for any juvenile to consume alcohol unless he /she is undeetheldirect
supervision of his /her parent or guardian,
The Public Safety ccamuission found that there is substantial concern in the Saratoga
Community regarding juvenile substance abuse (as evidenced
Not only do juvenils disrupt the peace a by the attached petition).
their parties get out of hand tranquility of local, neighborhoods when
to the public safety of local, r sideenntus and l to Sar � a significant threat
Once the City Attorney has prepared the draft ordinances
by the Coinnisssion and then Presented to the City Council durriingra publicvheeaarring for
final consideration.
Fiscal Ism act: Should the above - referenced o
hearing, an um}Qxwn revenue savin s in fiances be adopted at a future public
recovery of costs for second re ous g the Sheriffs budget may result through the
in the number of parties r squir spes to parties together with a possible decrease
ing the attention of the Sheriff's Office. .
EXE CCT= SUNDRY NO.
SUBJBC'T: Developimelt
December 20, 1989
Paqe 2
of Draft "Party ordinances,, for Saratoga
Attachments:
1. Excerpt from the November Public
2. Los Gatos Ordinance #1
3. Los Gatos Ordinance #2
4. Summary comparing Party Ordinances
5. Petition presented to Public Safety
signatures encouraging Saratoga to
Motion and Vote:
)60�-
Safety Commission Meeting Minutes
in other jurisdictions
Ccamission in October containing 129
adopt a party ordinance.
PSC Minutes - 11/13/89
Page 7
Problem. He did not believe it did. Co®. Long greed with Com.
Crane indicating that he didn't think that th a was a safety
Problem* at that intersection because of the h dge, either. The
Commission agreed that the intersection in
intersection that now has a stop sign prese t•estie o a ��on
concluded that there is very little tr fic The Commission
slowly, and traffic must stop at the sto sign. ' e moves very
stop sign can see clearly in both direc ons . People to the
tion were instead a yield rather than a to If the 'intersec-
tion
would.be entirely different. p, their view of this
MOMO : It was moved /seconded
r
in as much as all members y Com' O'Rorke /Crane that,
visit-
ed the site and had rea edasconclusion that had safety
problem really does no exist at this
section because of Mr Heid's hedge, the rPSC urecommends
that the City take o further enforcement actions
this matter; provi d, however, that Mr. Heid trims t1, in
hedge down to 6 eet on the top and 18 inches on the
side (removing i from the sidewalk) within the neat 361"1
days.
Motion pass 9d by unanimous vote.
As an additional te, the Commission wanted to
commending Mr. Do se and Mr. Nottoli for the go on record
in this matter. The Commission wanted to emphasize y that done
staff should p oceed with the enforcemen t of matters such as
t
these, and th Commission would be available to review unique
circumstances, as exists with regard to Mr. Heid's situation,
whenever re qu sted to do so.
Stop Si ns 0 G as ow Drl� and g2= At Mill_ Drive:
Mr. A'g presented the Commission with a re
nearing staff recommending that on signs ort from the engi-
Glasgo Drive and Glasgow Court at their gintersectionlwithnMiljeh bot
vich ive.
/ MMQTIM: It was moved /seconded by Com. O'Rorke /Swanson that
the Saratoga PSC supports the staff recommendation to
install the stop signs
Drive. on Glasgow Court and Glasgow
Motion passed by unanimous vote.
.._�> COST RAqQVnX pgASIBI M UM (PARTIES):
Chairman Borah announced to the Commission that t
finally come for the Commission to formalize recommendations had
the City Council conceraing whether or not the City should devel-
op a party ordinance, and if it should, what form that ordinance
should take. The Chairman noted that there were members of the
public present to address the Commission on this issue.
,e�
PSC Minutes - 11/13/89 Page 8
Mr. Brooks indicated that he was at the meeting to see what the
Commission's thoughts were on the issue. He had worked with the
Community Against Substance Abuse (CASA) group on the matter, and
was very anxious to see some action taken in that regard. He had
reviewed the minutes from the last PSC meeting, which he felt
were very informative and detailed, and provided him with a lot
of background information on the issue. He had some concerns
about the Los Altos ordinance and the comments made at the last
meeting (as reflected in the minutes) that the Town of Los Altos
does not feel they need a second response ordinance because they
attempt to stop parties during the first response. He felt
Saratoga should also attempt to stop unruly parties at the first
response, but felt that a second response ordinance was very
necessary as a backup mechanism.
Mrs. Bowman indicated that she had attended the October meeting.
of the Commission, and the Commission was already acquainted with.
her feelings on the matter. She reminded the Commission that s �ie,.....
had brought the petitions with 160 naves on them which supported;;
the development of a party ordinance. She felt that the Commis
sion had done an excellent job on thrashing out the issues
associated with the feasibility of developing a party ordinance,
and was anxiously awaiting their final action.
Com. Swanson indicated that he preferred the two ordinance ap-
proach used in the Town of Los Gatos. He felt that the City
needs to give the Sheriff's Department additional tools to handle
unruly parties. Com. O'Rorke agreed with Com. Swanson, and added
that the implementation of the ordinance was very important in
terms of the use of discretion in the field. Chairman Borah
asked Mr. Argow if the two ordinances such as those found in Los
Gatos could be combined into one ordinance. Mr. Argow responded
by saying that the two ordinances would have to be kept separated
because they relied on two different provisions of law. The Los
Gatos ordinance making it a crime to be a minor and in possession
of alcohol relied on criminal enforcement; specifically, the
crime was a misdemeanor which was a very serious offense. The
Los Gatos second response ordinance, on the other hand, relied on
civil law concerning the collection of fees resulting from the
City resources spent in responding to an incident a second time.
Mr. Argow recommended that the Commission not address detailed
language for an ordinance at this time. Rather, he recommended
that the Commission indicate to the City Council whether or not
they felt a party ordinance was appropriate in Saratoga, and
identify a model ordinance which would represent their preferred
approach. The City Council would then direct the City Attorney
to develop specific language for such an ordinance (or ordi-
nances) and would run that specific language by the Commission
assuming that the City,,Gvuncil concurred with the PSC's recommen-
dation.
,t" . 1.
PSC Minutes - 11/13/89
Page 9
At this point there was some discussion concerning how
t
criminal aspect of a Los Gatos -like ordinance would be appliedto
Saratoga! homeowners who were absent at the time of a given part
Mr. Brooks in particular expressed concern that a
fine is a very serious offense, and could car misdemeanor
months in jail. ter, carry with it up to six
discretion in the fieldo~sPVinted out that this is an area where
Town of Los Gatos ordinance makes it very diffhicultntoage in the
such individuals unless there is a clear indication of substan-
tial negligence on the prosecute
rea-
sonable cause to believeathatfathe homeowner, and they had sence. Chairman Borah felt that these kinds ofc details tshould abe
worked out with a draft ordinance
if the Council endorses a recommendartion8efrom b the
the Commyissionrnto
Proceed ahead.in this matter.
NO -TION: It was moved /seconded b Con.
that the PSC recommends that the CityanCouncil di =ane
the City Attorney to prepare a two -part ordinance.';"
Patterned after that which already exists in the Townie" -
of Los Gatos but particularized for Saratoga, and send
that draft back to the ?SC for further review.
Motion passed by unanimous vote.
Mr. A.rgow informed the Commission that Councilwoman.Anderson had
called him and requested that he relay an idea to the Commission
for further consideration. She wondered what the Commission
thought about the idea of having the City host a large party for
Saratoga youth if the vandalism statistics in Saratoga dro b
two - thirds during a one year period. She has suggested y
e
underwrite the. costs for this party, which would beehelde onita
closed off portion of Allendale Avenue near City Hall to express
the community's appreciation for ' the lowered vandalism
statistics. She felt that such an incentive might be a motivat-
ing factor to encourage peer pressure on the
lower the rate of vandalism in Sarato a, part of youth to
Commission thought about the idea. g She wondered what the
Con. Swanson indicated that he had heard of such an approach
being tried in a small city in Idaho. Both he and the other
Commissioners felt that such an idea might work for a small
locally - defined population such as the students at a specific
school or the youths from a specific neighborhood, but were
doubtful as to whether such an approach would be as effective
When implemented on a cit
the possibility that they -wide basis. They indicated there
was
youth of the comeunity might react in
the opposite way, y, recognizing that the City was attempting to use
peer pressure to achieve its vandalism reduction objec-
tives. However, the Commission also agreed that the i
tainly, has some merit,•and would be worth further studdea cer-
would keep the idea in mind, and possibl y. they
continue to deal with the pa y modify
to rty problem in the future. y
PSC Minutes - 11/13/89
gg= SCE $$PORT:
Page 10
Com. Swanson informed the Commission that Karen Franza, the Vice
Principal of Saratoga High School, had
and was now Karen Hyde. Mrs. Hyde was also recently married
but indicated she planned on continuing on at Saratoga che g
School in her existing job after the baby as born. S High
informed Com. Swanson that she, and the administration of Sarato-
ga High School, were very She had
ties. Saratoga High School shas obeenetrflnhe PSC actions on to-
way of administering • .. ,. trying to find an effective
the liability g a pr °gram while effectively dealing with
regards. to the Boy uScout seofhAmericallY found
a solution with
they have informed an Explorer Scout TroopSwhich, as its Project, is handling the coordination of the Safe Rides Program
for the school. The Boy Scout Troop is covered b q
insurance for the projects it undertakes by National Scouts
Of America; hence, the resolution of the liability issue.
Y Scouts
In an unrelated matter, she felt that the City's Youth Commissi ;± '
could provide an activity for Saratoga high school -a e
developing and supporting y
idea be transmitted toltheaYouthlComsissioo for their g d youth by
She asked that this
tion. considera-
NEIGHBORHOOD W RB_ SORT:
The Commission noted that there were no new neighborhood watch
areas being proposed for consideration. tch
frustration at the difficult in They expressed some
established in the ffi Y getting neighborhood watch areas
things they have done City. They reflected on all the different
and felt the issue of neighborhood IIewatchrshhoulwatch in Saratoga,
attention at their next annual retreat is January, given a lot of
CSO R POR :
Mr- Argow reported that the CSO's spent the biggest
their time on code enforcement matters. g chunk of
EM M RQQJM ORDI ar��.
There was considerable discussion concerning the fire safe roof-
COS. ordinance issue. Ca, f
Council meeting on October 18,r where ptheeCouncil approved of the
ing the ordinance on a vote of 3 to 2. pproved adopt-
ing, however, the Council changed its At the cause t 1 meet-
ing on October 18 was within one day of theimajo =cea =ththe meet -
many Saratoga residents may not have had the Opportunity and
and express their vierfs on this matter according to the
Saratoga -Los Gatos Real'Sstate Board pPortunity to come
Council wanted to hear as much citizen inputdast� Because the
matter, they had scheduled it for a study session on November 28,
Possible on the
1989, at which they would seek additional citizen input on the
matter. Chairman Borah emphasized the importance for the Commis-
.v
a
d
ORDINANCE NO:
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ENACTING SECTION 17 -43 OF
THE TOWN CODE OF LOS GATOS PERTAINING TO SECOND POLICE RESPONSE
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
Section 17 -43 of the Los Gatos Town Code is enacted to read as
follows:
Section 17 -43. Disturbance requiring a second police response.
When a disturbance occurs at a premises and a police
officer at the scene determines that there is a threat to
the public peace, health, safety or general welfare, the
person in' -charge of the premises and the person responsible
for the event, or if either of those persons is a minor, then
the parents or guardians of that minor, will be held jointly
and severally liable for the cost of providing police
personnel on special security assignment over and above the
services normally provided by the department. The police
personnel utilized during a second response after the first
warning to control the threat to the public peace, health,
safety or general welfare, shall be deemed to be on special
security assignment over and above the services normally
provided. The costs of such special security assignment
shall include the costs of police response, damage to
Town property and injuries to Town personnel.
SECTION II
All other ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith
are hereby repealed.
SECTION III
This ordinance shall not impose a requirement of a second response
by police to a disturbance where a determination is made that termination of the
disturbance is necessary on the first response to keep the peace and ensure the
health, safety and general welfare of the public. The fees imposed for a second
response to such a disturbance will be established by the Town Council by
Resolution.
SECTION IV
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty. (30)
days from and after it is adopted. Within 15 days after this ordinance is
adopted the Town Clerk shall cause it to be published once in a newspaper of
general circulation published and circulated in the Town.
This ordinance was introduced at a meeting
of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on ,
1989 and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos
at a meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Los Gatos on , 1989.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS
SIGNED: I
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
ATTEST:
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
r•
RESOLUTION NO: 1989 -51
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING
A SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR SECOND RESPONSES BY THE LOS GATOS
POLICE DEPARTMENT TO INCIDENTS CAUSED BY DISTURBANCES
RESOLVED, that there be imposed fees for the Police Department
service as follows, and amending Resolution No. 1988 -26,
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos strongly supports efforts in reducing
the number of responses to disturbance parties involving the use of alcohol
and /or drugs in the Town of Los Gatos, and,
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos expends considerable monies each year
in the response and investigation caused by these disturbances and Government
Code Section 38773 allows the recovery of these costs by local agencies,
RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos that-there
be imposed fees for services including second responses caused by disturbances
as follows:
Hourly Rate for Patrol Officer . . . . . .$83.22
Per Minute Rate for Patrol Officer . . . .$ 1.39
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the 17th day of April ,
1989 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Eric D. Carlson, Thomas J. Ferrito,
Robert L. Hamilton.
Mayor Joanne Benjamin
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS
a
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS Brent N. Ventura I
SIGNED: /s/ Joanne Benjamin
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
ATTEST:
/s/ Marian V. Cosgrove (seal)
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Defendant
Case Number
r
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Los Gatos Police Department
DISTURBANCE SECOND RESPONSE
Date Time
LABOR COSTS
Names os
Officers
I Times
Tasks Performed
Start I Finish i Total
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
(
l
I
I
I
I
EQUIPMENT
Special Equipment:
Specify
Other:
X $ = $
Hours
TOTAL BILLING (Labor and Equipment) $
Supervisor /ID#
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrol Officer rate per minute $1.39 (effective 1
1) All computations for reimbursement will be total minutes multiplied by
the per minute rate.
cc Case Report
Audit file
Finance
(Cost Analysis)
7/88
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
T 0 W N O F L 0 S G A T 0 S
Finance Administrator
Police Department
SUBJECT: Cost Recovery - Request for billing
Government Code 38773- Nuisance
** Damage to Town Property
Name and Address of Person to be Billed:
Phone: Business
Nome
Case Number
Date of Court Disposition (if applicable) CEN #
AMOUNT TO BE BILLED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
* *Answer questions below if Town Property was damaged:
1. What property was damaged?
2. What happened to cause damage?
3. When was property damaged?
4. Location of occurrence?
Form completed by
5/88 (Billing Notice)
ORDINANCE NO: 1791
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ENACTING SECTION 17 -44 OF THE
TOWN CODE OF LOS GATOS PERTAINING TO PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 21 WHO POSSESS
OR CONSUME ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
SECTION I
Section 17 -44 of the Los Gatos Town Code is enacted to read as
follows:
Section 17 -44. Certain Social Gatherings Unlawful.
(a)' No person under the age of twenty -one years shall have in his or
her possession or consume any alcoholic beverage at any place not
open to the public, unless that person is being supervised by his
or her parent or legal guardian.
(b) No person shall suffer, permit, allow or host a social gathering
at his or her place of residence where one or more persons under
the age of twenty -one (21) are present and alcoholic beverages
are in the possession of, or being consumed by, any person under
the age of twenty -one years; and there is no supervision by the
parent or legal guardian of each of the participants under the
age of twenty -one.
(c) Any person violating this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
SECTION II
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days
from and after it is adopted. Within 15 days after this ordinance is adopted
the Town Clerk shall cause it to be published once in a newspaper of general
circulation published and circulated in the Town.
This ordinance was introduced at a regular
Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on April 17, meeting of the
the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos atria adopted by
meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on
-- May 1 1989.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Robert L. Hamilton
Thomas J. Ferrito
Ma or Joanne Benjamin
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS Brent N. Ventura
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS Eric D. Carlson
SIGNED:
LUS GA 105
ATTEST:
/ � s
AWE
-2-
Charqes: Calculations for Second Response Fees
Santa Clara: Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead = 59C to 76C per min. + any damage to City property
Gilroy . Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead; No actual calculations given;rany damage to City property
Los Gatos . Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead = $1.39 per min. + any damage to City property
Alameda : Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead; No actual calculations given;♦ any damage to City property
San Fernando: Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead; No actual calculations given;rany damage to City property
Alcohol & Minors (contrasting Los Altos & Ins Gatos Ordinances)
The Los Altos Ordinance makes it unlawful for adults to serve alcohol to minors in their homes under all circumstances. Z
Los Gatos Ord. #2 allows alcohol to be served as long as each minor is under direct supervision of her /her parent or guardian.
CCYNPARISCN CF "PARTY ORDINANCES"
FRCM OTHER JURISDICTICNS
Effective
Applies to:
Time
Applies
to:
Party Size
Adult
Supervision
Fee /Fine
City /Agency
Date of Ord.
1st response
2nd response
Period
Adults
Juveniles
Minimum
Required?
Charged
Santa Clara
4/1/88
Warning
Cite
Within
Yes
Yes
3 or more
No
Fee varies.
12 hours
persons
Charged by minute
to max. of $750.
Ins Altos
2/28/89
Cite
N/A
N/A
No
Yes
10 or more
N/A
Fine /or infraction
($100 - $500)
Gilroy
1/4/88
Warning
Cite
Not
Yes
Yes
Not stated
No
Fee varies.
stated
Charged by minute
to max. of $500.
Ins Gatos
5/1/89
Warning
Cite
Not
Yes
Yes
Not stated
No
Fee varies.
Ord. #1
stated
Charged by minute,
no max.
Los Gatos
5/1/89
Cite
N/A
N/A
No
Yes
One or wore
Yes
Fine /or misdemeanor
Cam. #2
($1,000 max. and /or jail)
Alameda County
3/28/89
Warning
Cite
Not
Yes
Yes
Not stated
No
Fee varies.
stated
Charged by minute to
max. of $1,000.
San Fernando
11/7/88
Warning
Cite
Within
Yes
Yes
Not stated
No
Fee varies.
12 hours
Charged by minute to
max. of $500.
Charqes: Calculations for Second Response Fees
Santa Clara: Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead = 59C to 76C per min. + any damage to City property
Gilroy . Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead; No actual calculations given;rany damage to City property
Los Gatos . Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead = $1.39 per min. + any damage to City property
Alameda : Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead; No actual calculations given;♦ any damage to City property
San Fernando: Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead; No actual calculations given;rany damage to City property
Alcohol & Minors (contrasting Los Altos & Ins Gatos Ordinances)
The Los Altos Ordinance makes it unlawful for adults to serve alcohol to minors in their homes under all circumstances. Z
Los Gatos Ord. #2 allows alcohol to be served as long as each minor is under direct supervision of her /her parent or guardian.
SARATOGA JUVENILE ALCOHOL PARTY ORDINANCE
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER PASSING A
"PARTY ORDINANCE" SIMILAR TO THOSE ADOPTED BY LOS GATOS AND LOS ALTOS.
TITESE ORDINANCES WERE PASSED TO DISCOURAGE UNSUPERVISED JUVENILE
ALCOHOL PARTIES. *See the LOS ALTOS PARTY ORDINANCE pg. 2.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
VL
cl�
CJ74��
CITY OF SARATOGA
JUVENILE ALCOHOL PARTY ORDINANCE
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER PASSING A "PARTY
ORDINANCE" SIMILAR TO THOSE ADOPTED BY LOS GATOS AND LOS ALTOS.
THESE CITY ORDINANCES WERE PASSED TO DISCOURAGE UNSUPERVISED JUVENILE
ALCOHOL PARTIES. *See the LOS ALTOS ORDINANCE pg. 2.
NAME ADDRESS
Tam
13�Z4
!�5 0QD
Mal
r _ M0..
PHONE
7— G Y73
-- _-> e--;:)
_R6 2- 733-0
�A 7 7 -,f 3
�✓ e
SARATOGA JUVENILE ALCOHOL PARTY ORDINANCE
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER PASSING A
"PARTY ORDINANCE" SIMILAR TO THOSE ADOPTED BY LOS GATOS AND LOS ALTOS.
THESE ORDINANCES WERE PASSED TO DISCOURAGE UNSUPERVISED JUVENILE
ALCOHOL PARTIES. *See the LOS ALTOS PARTY ORDINANCE pg. 2.
NAME
ADDRESS
1 �dir�rx— _IYlo�l_
PHONE
_/,/ 7 - IoO� _.
4
A
-- - - - -2-0- 2-2, 5 c th e- 7 zll
�4��o�_g6'I oilk
G 7_- c y.,a [-- --
`7 LP
CITY OF SARATOGA
JUVENILE ALCOHOL PARTY ORDINANCE
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER PASSING A "PARTY
ORDINANCE" SIMILAR TO THOSE ADOPTED BY LOS GATOS AND LOS ALTOS.
THESE CITY ORDINANCES WERE PASSED TO DISCOURAGE UNSUPERVISED JUVENILE
ALCOHOL PARTIES. *See the LOS ALTOS ORDINANCE pg. 2.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
Ly` I4�2;L.1 RC �tVVVl �.,-� - '3:L
�:�Z Sri _ � _ / • ,
I' • .
u '
2/4. TOEaA Z� -1, -7
SARATOGA JUVENILE ALCOHOL PARTY ORDINANCE
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER PASSING A
"PARTY ORDINANCE" SIMILAR TO THOSE ADOPTED BY LOS' GATOS AND LOS ALTOS.
THESE ORDINANCES WERE PASSED TO DISCOURAGE UNSUPERVISED JUVENILE
ALCOHOL PARTIES. *See the LOS ALTOS PARTY ORDINANCE pg. 2.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
76 1
4618
. llr_clf�c
12.9 0-
z/
Zli
A
d
CITY OF SARATOGA
JUVENILE ALCOHOL PARTY ORDINANCE
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER PASSING A "PARTY
ORDINANCE" SIMILAR TO THOSE ADOPTED BY LOS GATOS AND LOS ALTOS.
4
THESE CITY ORDINANCES WERE PASSED TO DISCOURAGE UNSUPERVISED JUVENILE
ALCOHOL PARTIES. *See the LOS ALTOS ORDINANCE
pg. 2.
NAME
-7l� lsl lac
U
/10a 7U jtkx--
I�
ADDRESS
PHONE
alt � �.o23v �c ✓�.��.�.� U
� / L
l 717
-D
17 Iz 411
,cam -7 5`
�co yd �� a� ppyy
O(ri7�7! /7j
{
,� � 0 ),1 �� -
�' � J-J A�&N40 i
CITY OF SARATOGA
JUVENILE ALCOHOL PARTY ORDINANCE
r#
it I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER PASSING A "PARTY
ORDINANCE" SIMILAR TO THOSE ADOPTED BY LOS GATOS AND LOS ALTOS.
THESE CITY ORDINANCES WERE PASSED TO DISCOURAGE UNSUPERVISED JUVENILE
ALCOHOL PARTIES.
NAME
*See the LOS ALTOS ORDINANCE pg. 2.
ADDRESS
G�
PHONE
'J
1 J �r
-,�37
7y ( , (,�
-ca, s/?
?� ( -L4 0
Y(c7- =7i`-
g6-7 - 7(f)c >C,
nl r
o?a3Vu
V
J
CITY OF SARATOGA
JUVENILE ALCOHOL PARTY ORDINANCE
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER PASSING A "PARTY
ORDINANCE" SIMILAR TO THOSE ADOPTED BY LOS GATOS AND LOS ALTOS.
THESE CITY ORDINANCES WERE PASSED TO DISCOURAGE UNSUPERVISED JUVENILE
ALCOHOL PARTIES. *See the LOS ALTOS ORDINANCE pg. 2.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
CITY OF SARATOGA
JUVENILE ALCOHOL PARTY ORDINAl`ICE
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER PASSING A "PARTY
ORDINANCE" SIMILAR TO THOSE ADOPTED BY LOS GATOS AND LOS ALTOS.
THESE CITY ORDINANCES WERE PASSED TO DISCOURAGE UNSUPERVISED JUVENILE
ALCOHOL PARTIES. *See the LOS ALTOS ORDINANCE pg. 2.
NAME ADDRESS
PHONE
?22�, 1g4� Ak
r Z
1`=
r
r
r Z
1`=
-t 1 1►. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /'-/ 5 2—
MEETING DATE:12 /20/89
ORIGINATING DEPT. :Planningt
AGENDA ITEM: 84
CITY. MGR. APPROVALJ6)
fee
SUBJECT: Appeal of V -89 -043;
Applicants /Appellants: Ira & Mayumi Velinsky
Location: 15839 Hidden Hill Rd.
Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold
the appeal and reverse the Planning Commission's decision and grant
the variance by determining the necessary findings are present.
Report Summary:
The applicants are appealing the Planning Commission's denial of
the variance on the basis that City Council conditions of its
design review approval requires variance approval. In considering
the request, the Planning Commission was unable to determine there
were extraordinary conditions that distinguished this property from
others in the neighborhood, and was, therefore, unable to grant the
variance. The applicants are seeking redress by the Council as the
request conforms with plans approved by the City Council.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments:
1. Memo from Planning Dept.
2. Planning Commission Staff Reports
3. Minutes excerpts from Planning Commission 11/28/89 meeting
Motion and Vote:
1
1
(Dguw O
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor & City Council DATE: 12/20/89
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Appeal of V -89 -043
Applicants /Appellants - Ira & Mayumi Velinsky
Location - 15839 Hidden Hill Rd.
Report Summary
The applicants have appealed the Planning Commission's denial of
their variance request. The appeal is based on the Council's
requirement in granting design review approval which required the
variance for front yard setback. Because a majority of the Plan-
ning Commission felt that conforming alternatives which were
compatible with the neighborhood were available, the Commission
was unable to make the necessary findings to grant approval.
Background
Since the project has recently been before the Council on appeal,
the salient issues are well known. The City Council will recall
from the conclusion of its design review hearings several changes
were requested by Council and executed by the applicant: 1) the
garage was reduced to two cars; 2) the swimming pool was elimi-
nated from the plan; and 3) the parking area within the ravine
was deleted. The Council's resolution adopted to approve the
design review permit included an Exhibit which reflected these
changes. In addition, the exhibit was also.revised to eliminate
the need for the side yard variance as the proposed structure now
complies with the 20 ft. yard requirement.
The site plan which was identical to the Council exhibit was
submitted for review by the Planning Commission at a public
hearing on November 28, 1989 when the variance was considered.
The Planning Commission's hearing included testimony from neigh-
bors as well as the applicants and their architect. Neighbors
testified that the variance should be denied because the findings
were not present to deviate from City standards. Rather than
approve a variance, neighbors urged reduction in the house size
as a means to achieve code compliance. In addition, neighbors
questioned the location of the staking put on the site by the
2
1: applicant.
The neighbors also presented copies of CC &R conditions that limit
encroachment into yard areas and asked if the City can enforce
these conditions. In response, the Planning Commission responded
that CC &Rs are agreements between private property owners which
the City may not enforce. Nevertheless, individual homeowners
may elect to enforce CC &R conditions by bringing a civil action
independent of the City.
The Planning Commission discussed the presence of necessary
findings to grant the variance. Essentially, the major point of
departure between the majority and minority viewpoints was the
questions of exceptional site conditions. The Planning Commis-
sion majority felt that the topography of the site was not unusu-
al and that a code conforming home could be constructed with less
of an impact than the Council revised plans. The Planning Com-
mission minority felt that the ravine which encompassed 50% of
the site indeed constituted an extraordinary physical site condi-
tion that justified granting the variance in order to avoid
intrusion into this natural landform.
Staff recommended that the variance be granted due to the
presence of the ravine. This recommendation was essentially made
to the Planning Commission when the design was initially ap-
proved. Further, staff's recommendation to the Council when the
appeal was considered was based on findings staff felt were
present to grant the deviation from setback standards.
Findings
As the Council is aware, it is encumbent upon the City to deter-
mine several findings prior to granting authorization to deviate
from zoning standards. The following findings are required to
grant the variance requested by the applicant:
1) The variance is necessary because of special circum-
stances applicable to the property, including size, shape
topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of
the specified regulation, would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the
vicinity and classified in the same zoning district.
Discussion: Due to the unusual topography, a 40 ft. deep
ravine, which bisects this property, the suitability uncon-
strained building site lies in the northeast corner of the
property which requires a setback variance in order to
develop a home comparable to other in the neighborhood.
2) The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant
of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on
other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same
zoning district.
3
Discussion: Because other property owners in the zone
district enjoy single family homes on property similarly
sized, the applicant is merely enjoying a property right
commonly seen throughout the neighborhood. The variance is
required to enable the applicant to locate a home comparable
in size by Saratoga standards in the most unobtrusive loca-
tion.
3) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injuri-
ous to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
Discussion: The variance is to a front yard setback which
is adjacent to the easterly neighboring parcel. Because the
adjacent home is set back a substantial distance and the
adjoining yard area is a level pad substantially lower in
elevation, the visual impact of the reduced setback is
minimal.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to prepare a
resolution approving the variance to allow the front yard to
be reduced from 35 feet to 8 feet in that the necessary
findings are present to grant such variance.
Step en 'EimqAlie
Planning Director
Attachments
SE /dsc
4
ra
� e o
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SAR:- TOC3A. (:ALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
November 29, 1989
Mr. Ira Velinsky
P.O. Box 93
E1 Granada, California 94018
Dear Mr. Velinsky:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
David Moyles
Donald Peterson
Francis Stutzman
We have received your application for an appeal of variance denial
for a house at 15839 Hidden Hill Road.
This matter has been set for the City Council meeting of December
20, 1989. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten
minutes for your presentation on this appeal. The hearing is "de
novo," which means that any relevant issue for or against your
appeal may be considered, whether or not it was considered by the
Planning Commission and regardless of whether the Planning
Commission approved the application.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
sincerely,
1r
Grace E. Cory
Deputy City Clerk
,/Cc-: Planning Department
J
I
Name of Appellant:
Address:
Telephone:
Name of Applicant:
Project File No.:
Project Address:
Project Description:
Date Received:// ?-J11 i
Hearing Date: 1112-o p�
Fee ;Vo l-CC
CITY USE
APPEAL APPLICATION
7-1;71-11 G777
Decision Being Appealed: vrp���Jy
• Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
Pc t ignature
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
TATS APPLICATION. MUST BE SUBMITTED IVTTI-IIN TEN 10) C/ILCPIDAR DAYS O1'
7�II� A' L- U1• fI L• UC�r1�5I0. .
w
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM '.3i6�)hen Emslie
DATE: 6-28-89 PLNG, DIR. APPRV.
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: V -89 -043 15839 Hidden Hill Road
APPLICANT /OWNER: Velinsky
APN:510 -24 -019 Q
N
E &1L
ZONING: HC -RD GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD
PARCEL SIZE: 47,154 sq. ft. (net site area excluding access
corridor.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 23%
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 300 cu. yds. Cut Depth: 2 ft.
220 cu. yds. Fill Depth: 5 ft.
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: EXTERIOR: Horizontal siding,
grey -brown and grey tiles; ROOF: Composition shingles.
PROPOSED
LOT COVERAGE: 18% (8,542 sq. ft.)
HEIGHT:
23 ft.
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: 4,824 sq. ft.
SETBACKS: Front:
8
ft.
Rear:
110
ft.
Right Side:
20
ft.
Left Side:
88
ft.
CODE REOUIREMENT/ALLOWANCE
25% (11,789 sq. ft.)
26 ft.
5,142 sq. ft.
Front:
35
ft.
Rear:
50
ft.
Right Side:
20
ft.
Left Side:
20
ft.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking the Commission's
approval of a single variance for a reduced front yard setback.
The plans show an 8 ft. setback from the front property line
where 35 ft..is the minimum required by City Ordinance. The
remaining setbacks, sides and rear conform to City standards.
Since the plans were last reviewed by the Planning Commission at
its October 25th public hearing, several major changes were re-
quired by the Council. The most recent plans can be summarized
by the following:
1. The site plan has been revised to eliminate encroachment
into the 20 ft. northerly side yard setback. An architectur-
al feature including a porch overhang and column extends 3
ft. into the setback which is a permitted side yard encroach-
ment.
2. The three car garage has been reduced to a two car garage.
Although the building is still 8 ft. from the front property
line, there is now 18 ft. of open space between the garage
and the property line.
3. A parking and turnaround area on the lower portion of the
site adjacent to the access corridor has been eliminated.
1
4. The pool within the northerly side yard has been deleted.
5. The site plan indicates that the proposal is above the 660
foot elevation nearest the southerly property line, and
extends over the 660 foot elevation nearest the northerly
property line.
FINDINGS: Since the Planing Commission is very familiar with the
site conditions having previously considered and approved devel-
opment of this site, this report will focus on the existence of
required findings to grant the front yard setback variance. For
reference purposes, recent Planning Commission and City Council
minutes are attached for the Commission's convenience.
1. Exceptional Physical Circumstances: Staff finds that the
presence of a ravine which bisects the property greatly re-
stricts the buildable portion of the site.
2. Special Privileges: Staff concludes that the granting of
the variance will not constitute the granting of special
privileges since the proposed development is within the size
range of surrounding neighborhood homes.
3. Detrimental to Surroundings: Because the residence adjacent
to the encroachment is considerably lower than proposed
construction and is separated by a substantially level set
back area, the encroachment's impact is greatly reduced.
Further, the encroachment to the north has been eliminated
which reduces the visual impact of the proposed structure
from the valley floor. Lastly, two ordinance size trees
required to be removed will be replaced with suitable size
and number of trees after construction is complete as condi-
tions of this variance approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
consider granting the variance by adopting Resolution V -89 -043.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution V -89 -043
2. City Council Resolution 2598.1
3. Previous Staff Reports & Minutes
4. Plans, Exhibit A
2
RESOLUTION NO. V -89 -043
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
VELINSKY - 15839 HIDDEN HILL RD.
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has re-
ceived an application for variance approval of a front yard
setback.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly no-
ticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were
given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required
to support his said application, and the Planning Commission
makes the following findings:
A'strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance in that the
property is bisected by a ravine which restricts the buildable
area necessitating the granting of a variance in order to con-
struct a residence which does not adversely impact this natural
landform.
Exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances exist that
are applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of
the property which do not apply generally to other properties in
the same zoning district in that the usable building pad is
located in the extreme no corner of the site which greatly
limits the area suitable for building a residence that conforms
with City setback standards.
Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in
the same zoning district in that other owners of properties in
the HC -RD zone district are permitted to construct single family
homes on portions of their properties not constrained by topo-
graphic features such as a ravine.
Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties
of improvements in the vicinity in that the residence nearest the
front yard encroachment is substantially below the subject
property and is separated by a large level setback area which
minimizes visual intrusion to this adjacent property. Further,
landscaping to be removed by the proposed construction will be
replaced by the applicant by condition of this variance approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
3
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in
connection with this matter, the application of Ira Velinsky for
variance approval by and the same is hereby granted subject to
the following conditions:
1. All conditions contained in the Resolution No DR -89 -013 are
hereby incorporated herein by reference and shall remain in full
force and effect.
2. In accordance with conditions of DR -89 -013, the applicant
shall include appropriate landscape material in the required
landscape plans to compensate for the removal of the two ordi-
nance size trees.
Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or
said resolution shall be void.
Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months
or approval will expire.
Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, Coun-
ty, City and other Governmental entities must be met.
5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this resolution to
each set of construction plans which will be submitted to the
Building Division when applying for a building permit.
6. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article
15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall become
effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND
sion, State of
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis -
California, this 28th day of November, 1989 by the
Chairman, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Applicant Date
4
RESOLUTION NO. 2598.1
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA CONCERNING DR- 89-013
WHEREAS, on October 4, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
2598, reversing a decision of the Planning Commission granting design review approval
on the application by Ira Velinsky and Mayumi Velinsky ( "the applicants ") to construct
a single family residence upon the site located at 15839 Hidden Hill Road, such
application being identified as DR -89 -013; and
WHEREAS, the application was referred back to the Planning Commission
to consider various modifications to the project, as described in Resolution No. 2598;
and
WHEREAS, such modifications were reviewed by the Planning Commission
at a public hearing conducted on October 25, 1989, and following the conclusion
thereof, the Planning Commission submitted a written report to the City Council
signed by the Commission Chairman on October 27, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the application was again considered by the City Council at its
regular meeting on November 1, 1989, at which time any person interested in the
matter was given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the report from the
Planning Commission, the staff reports and the written and oral evidence presented to
the City Council in support of and in opposition to the revised application for design
review approval,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga, at its
meeting on November 1, 1989, by a vote of 3 -2, with Councilmembers Moyles and
Stutzman dissenting, did resolve as follows:
1. The design of the project shall be modified to eliminate the lower
parking turnaround area and reduce the garage from 3 to 2 car, as
shown on the drawings attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by reference.
2. The driveway to the lot shall be constructed entirely within the
boundaries of the recorded access easement, as opposed to the access
corridor of the flag lot.
3. The pool has been deleted from the plans and no longer constitutes a
part of the design review application.
4. The applicants will be required to apply for a variance to allow
modification of the front yard and side yard setback requirements.
All application fees for such variances shall be waived.
s s s
-1-
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 15th day of November,
1989, by the following vote:
AYES: C.ouncilmmnbers Anderson, Moyles, Peterson, Stutzman and Mayor Clevenqer
NOES:. Nome
ABSENT: None
'Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-2-
^0-1Ee
LL LL
6�-�Plv-v II 11-1111 O-n�--r
II —I,-
xirvr 5l✓
u
,rrnr✓
u
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
MINUTES
DATE: November 25, 1989
PLACE: Community Center, Arts & Crafts Room, 19665 Allendale Ave.
TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting
--------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Roll Call: Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Moran, Harris, Burger,
Absent: Commissioner Tappan
1. V -89 -043 - Velinsky, 15839 Hidden Hill Rd., Planning Commission
review of a variance to allow an eight foot front yard setback
where a 35 ft. setback is required to allow the construction of a
4,824 sq. ft. single family residence in the HC -RD zone district
per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
The Planning Director, Stephen Emslie, presented the staff report
and explained that staff was able to find extraordinary condi-
tions related to the topography that justified granting the
variance. He also reviewed the design review application.
Ira Velinsky, applicant presented the revised plans and requested
that the Planning Commission grant approval.
Curt Anderson, architect for the applicant explained the setbacks
to property lines. He pointed out that the encroachment into the
northerly side yard was eliminated by incorporating the Council's
requested changes.
Wanda Alexander, 15879 Ravine Road, Los Gatos requested clarifi-
cation of actual property lines and the location of staking on
the site. She stated that the relocation requested by Council
did not correspond to the building outline shown on the site.
Ms. Alexander felt that granting the variance was unfair to the
neighborhood because it allowed a house larger than those in the
neighborhood. She also stated that this was the Planning Commis-
sion's last chance to limit the size of the home and bring the
size down to a point where a variance will not be required.
Arthur Slemmons spoke in reference to the Saratoga Planning
Director who spoke before the County Board of Supervisors to
object to the granting of a similar variance in the area. He
stated that the variance should not be approved because there was
no hardship.
Richard Sogg, 19262 Hidden Hill Road, spoke in regard to CC &R
conditions which limit the amount of grading and building setback
encroachment. The Planning Commission responded by stating that
CC &R's are private agreements that are not enforceable by the
City.
1
Robert Sturgis, attorney representing the neighbors, questioned
the finding of practical hardship. He felt that the house was
too large and was not a definable hardship. His opinion was that
the applicant should reduce the size of the home because it was
too large. He stated that Saratoga should adhere to the strict
application of its ordinances and not grant the variance. He
questioned the equity of the variance because it was not neces-
sary in order to promote equity in the neighborhood.
Curt Anderson, architect for the applicant, spoke to the efforts
the Velinsky's have taken to fit the home into the neighborhood.
The public hearing was closed by order of the Chairman.
Commissioner Harris asked about the process and the applicant's
right to appeal. The Planning Director stated that any decision
of the Commission was appealable to Council. She stated she had
difficulty in making the variance findings because it would be a
grant of special privileges.
Commissioner Burger inquired about the Planning Commission's
initial approved design review in comparison to the plans cur-
rently before the Commission. The Director then provided a
comparison of the former plans approved by the Planning Commis-
sion and the variance currently requested.
Commissioner Tucker felt that the project redesign and the vari-
ance was not necessary as she was unable to make the required
variance findings.
Commissioner Kolstad stated that he recently visited the site and
did not see the need for concern. He felt that the plans have
been overscrutinized and that the City was being too extreme. He
felt that the original plan was acceptable and that the revised
plan was acceptable. He did not see what all the fuss was about.
Commissioner Burger stated that she was previously unable to make
variance findings and now even though it was very painful for
her, she cannot vote to approve the variance.
Chairman Siegfried stated that he felt that the site was very
unusual due to its topography. He felt that the findings were
present to grant the variance.
Commissioner Kolstad moved and Chair Siegfried seconded a motion
to approve V -89 -043.
Ayes: Commissioners Kolstad, Siegfried
Noes: Commissioners Tucker, Harris, Moran and Burger
Absent: Commissioners Tappan
The motion failed 2 -4.
2
Commissioner Harris moved and Burger seconded to deny V -89 -043.
Ayes: Commissioners Tucker, Harris, Moran and Burger.
Noes: Commissioners Kolstad & Siegfried.
Absent: Commissioner Tappan
The motion carried 4 -2.
Motion to adjourn the meeting carried 6 -0.
Respe tfull ubmitted
Stephen Ems lie
r
m
i
J � .
\- 0
to.
to -9
r
EXIST. 20' INGRESS 8 EGRESS
20 -EAS MENTS EASEMENT AND UNDERGROUND
per BK 7111 OR 423 _ _ - _ EASEMENT TO CAMPBELL per
per OK 7381 R 588 — _ 20_ _ B. 7111, OR. 423 AND SEWERp
7� EASEMENT DI"per
B.7223,0R.644 A NDERGROL
_ _ OAD -EASEMENT TO PG.a
_ HILL _ per 8.7381, OR 588
I \ T TO HIED N UM 21 /Z G ` 1/
TERMINUS I1/ J � � �
EASEMENTS =/ i / RADED ORITEON WITH A MIN — — —
i/ / E ISTING POR
f/ 1 S FACE UN AvED
/ = /
/ I WRI 0. 9.02• %%A 00 C
PSE.TT
TERMINVS��
EASEMENT
IL
N \
A ;PNOXIMATE Li \
I]O TO EXIST
NOME
Ego
�y.
\ ZR
I
120'
NOW 288.31' \1t, el=
I LIIeT NorL —1 /'
rdA / I NO
L �� f— B =D B • ` S =P
-- -- 'r�1
0
20' EASEMENT BE4~-
Per8K 7223
OR 644
1`
1
o"i 1 T'I
4101 +` � p60 SOP EEE` �_r
SP ► `a.l'
�-�
I'
END
GAI
l U J =R,
__ FF BiTO i O.•.
401 � /_� / / / / / //i
/
994 /
AsA /1.,f.
v EXIST
SHALE
EXIST.
NOME
SE O 1
_ s
5B
0.00' \ Pn�capE
oslo
RfTAAwNd
I OECR W.0
FF issS� R \1 '
.► ffaa- ,F k ���
e
or 661.0
o oPrMto / L /s�
z
�I
" -- _- _ --� -_—
-_ - -i- — --
GENERAL NOTES_-
Na Oe:lR¢. J.C.F.. Dec. O!Ur "TWI • IRA VELIMSNT
IYfO W W
LQ..s..., u nn•
L. 4MIna t1Mi ONrKT TC 1¢ tIT• Y•DI1C u>rItDR !•. TO • •CAS OrCir:-
AIB R Y n
unws MmFlim•tlm TR cmrKQICAL Saar• rn ao:t
S,
H IODEN
1. IFI scfr.ctc °.,.
H 1 LL
m.wNl To TX[ r[nuuec c•1. -w• rt _A, nn,n-
CATIONS. to vscu: rsansloY .s ns n•FCAU er.ACU ¢ac:•n n r¢ tsr
ROAD
r. suTeAR sou a D:rrcTO .KAT rnw Tt rtcc-nt •T u Ta A -1 •s L:n • nn
•u I. !_DNS. •:� •:Vf DU:r3 �•'" Y D:LL ^a Y.r ICI[ -! ryt t:t:'�'l{, 1•
SS se-
s[ rn onn•s ur.s:se_:� T< nr�1 r - T+e Daa :s•cs rt>�, u�
-:..
fL•LJS sent. rasa. Aa ur, aua w Ys:uc -.w: •� rr..lwu .t is T:�s.
IN
ART w.:.- YL'J SNU• ¢rsN. •n r A tA=: OF Tau III — S
C.A1L
wslR AXe f m n ers•s. sn rn rrsc r rn I'm,: or rn
L
OF
). rn Wl wn T.ARTT:tS SeM ANSI^.. AAe VI[ ?r�L:i LA •LTD m rc!
¢uw. rsara exsz sec:.•c. m n n= w.:uc! Dr sn sua. c
w:lm or m u:n m:rr l•c D[r•s. A•D n T•T D:RLR[ nzTn Tn c•.nras•
s.aLV •sa •ru n- aIrru, s¢ u! a s.¢:r:u.- w-• -•rs Is ra
. Tee turns -.,s sou uzlsn nuu
ROIL
ROIL To a feoso.
O ACA
•. [sDltw arTfe r.Art:se An •n r+n II.T crT .:w OR ms:n cars. -s rRJa:ess
va rrm se•u rT ru•T;po n W —C, •ATS. sn ,....!w[ r�L. raa :r..: "s
4
e
or rL•XTI•c. m M. corns Ara •:L: uTrn:w r�::c TTn sou I[ n
rocs n totcBU I•s.
r. owtrc To fMTr u Te[ trfcVC AIO n asNnrc n T¢ nu.
f. nn rw II a r•r. as PmrrCT roll[. m .nns-sc •rD ,+os:ArT rues rr
SRMY AXD BON $&—
f NY Cowman WED OR PNOTDWAY[TRIt -AV e• = CONTOURS SAsto
HANNON,JENStR S SALLEY. JAN IfE, III ON SEPT 1199
TE Sf7). -11[1.0 VERIFT BEFORE COYST4UCTIOY FIELD SYRTET
10. BITE IS ZONED NCRD AND IS VACANT
II. SITE IS LOCATED AT I5039 KIDDER HILL All AND IS
0Ee1BNATED AFN 910. 24.19.
AATCH LINE (SEE INSERT
[[0 LEFT FOR ORIVEWAT
/RNIpDEN POLL RO0�
�� RON
K
t AS RED,
C r)T TO ER IDI
\ RSTALL
CURS ON
DOWRKILL
SIDE. ,
1-
�o
1�
<e
VICINITY MAP
�L..... �. 111 _.500'
L B
\I
. . tam SITE AM 1`268 AC 1 MOSS I
AVERAGE LOT $WIFE 23X
IATESAGE SLOPE AT NUMIM SITE : i %
EXCAVATION i0I C.T.
' 2 VAX- DEPTS
TILT• fro G.T.
f MAX. DEM
t E G E S D
1 3 - PROPOSED CONTOM '
EXISTING CONTOURS
FIIO -so RFTALSING L'ALL (DESLOW ST OTSELS)
BEXISTING TREE
O
�7( MSTTNC TREE TO BE MOVED
r.T.Y PROPOSED FINISRED FLOOR
P FROMM FAD ELEVATION
C.I. PROPOSED CAIAGE FLOOR ELEVATION
S.S. PROPOSED TOP OF NALL
PIOPOSEI DIIAISAGL fs:AL[
�T rROroSED DLAIMGE DIlECTIOY
••••••........ « » » -. PROPOSED DATUM LINE
• —N ---11 9 — FROMM PLAIN LIST an INLET
r
r
N
T =
E1 I
Y.
a
9
�a
08
ids
4
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. / -1 AGENDA ITEM L�
MEETING DATE: December 20, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services
SUBJECT: Transfer of Cable Televsion Franchise From Hearst
Cablevision to Brenmor Cable Partners
Recommended Motion: Adopt Resolution authorizing the Mayor to
sign the attached Assumption Agreement conditionally transferring
the Saratoga cable television franchise from Hearst Cablevision
of California to Brenmor Cable Partners.
Report Summary: Hearst Cablevision of California is dissolving
due to the decision of the Hearst Corporation to get out of the
cable television system operating business. Toward that objec-
tive, the Hearst Corporation is selling all of its cable televi-
sion franchises to Brenmor Cable Partners conditioned on City
Council approval of the franchise transfers. Staff was initially
concerned that Brenmor Cable Partners was a relatively new cable
company without much of a track record, and that Brenmor's parent
company, InterMedia Capitol Management (ICM) relied heavily on
the financial resources of its limited partners for its operating
capital. However, both Brenmor and ICM have subsequently demon-
strated their financial and personnel capabilities to operate the
Hearst Cable systems they are purchasing.
Although a request to transfer a franchise does not constitute
grounds to negotiate new franchise provisions, both Hearst and
Brenmor have made a number of considerable concessions condi-
tioned on City Council approval of the Transfer in December,
which are the substance of the attached Franchise Assumption
Agreement. The more significant of these include the following:
A) A commitment to negotiate for a new franchise including a
plan to substantially upgrade the existing system to sixty (60)
channels by September 1, 1990, even though the company has (and
retains) the option to extend the existing franchise to late
1997, pursuant to the original Franchise Agreement approved in
1978.
B) A procedure for conducting a technical audit of the CATV
system if there is evidence of a failure to perform, at the cable
company's expense up to a maximum of $5,000.
C) A requirement to survey CATV subscribers not less than every
other year beginning May 1, 1990, to determine customer
satisfaction with company performance, and report the survey
tabulations, findings, and company responses to the City.
Page 2
D) A commitment to keep Saratoga's community access channel on
Channel 6.
E) A commitment to reduce the level of subscriber complaints to
meet standards identified in the Agreement, and report monthly to
the City of their progress toward that objective.
F) An agreement to abide by a schedule of refunds to subscrib-
ers for losses of CATV service (including a full refund of the
total monthly fee if the service is lost for three (3) or more
consecutive days).
G) An agreement to pay the City fines and penalties for exces-
sive CATV service losses and other failures to abide by the
franchise terms and conditions.
H) An agreement to cable the City Council Chambers so that
Council meetings can be televised live, up to a maximum of
$8,000.
I) An agreement to provide the City a total of $60,000 ($30,000
from Hearst and $30,000 from Brenmor) for the purchase of local
community access television equipment.
J) A commitment to provide cable television service to a major
established subdivision in the City involving sixty -eight (68)
homes (known as the "Brandy- Wine" area) which do not meet the
current minimum density standards identified in the Franchise
Agreement.
K) An agreement to pay the City a non refundable $5,000 trans-
fer fee should the company ever request another transfer of the
franchise in the future.
Staff feels that both Hearst and Brenmor have offered some major
concessions in consideration of the transfer which go far beyond
the requirements associated with such a request, and therefore
recommends approval of the transfer. Brenmor will be doing
business as South Bay Cable.
Fiscal Impacts: An additional $60,000 restricted to the purchase
of local origination /public access video production equipment;
unknown amounts of revenue in the form of fines to the City
should the cable operator fail to perform under the terms of the
Franchise or Assumption Agreements.
Attachments:
1. Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign Agreement
2. Franchise Assumption Agreement
`w
Page 3
3. Letter from Hearst dated 12 -13 -89 agreeing to match Bren-
mor's donation of $30,000 with an additional $30,000 for the
purchase of local access television production equipment.
4. Letter dated 9 -25 -89 from InterMedia to City explaining
relationship between companies associated with the Brenmor
cable system, without attachments
5. Letter dated 10 -11 -89 from InterMedia to City, further
explaining company organization, finances, and roles without
attachments
6. Letter dated 11 -8 -89 (same as above), with attachments
Motion and Vote:
NESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SARA-TOGA APPB.OYIIIG ASSIST OF TEE
F$AI GL= FOR CABLE TE EATON NICE TO
BRENMOR GABLE PARTNERS
WHEREAS, on August 3, 1977, the City adopted Ordinance Ito. 38.79
granting a franchise to Video sneering, Inc- to construct, operate and maintain a
cable television system within the City of Saratoga; and
EAS, Section 4- 207(d) of the Saratoga City Gode provides that no
assignment of the cable television franchise can be made without the prior consent of
the City Council expressed by resolution, and then only under such conditions as
prescribed by the Council; and
W " EKF.AS, by Resolution No_ 2259 adopted by the City Council on July 17,
1985, the Council approved an asst- g,=ent of said franchise by Video Engineering, Inc_
to Hearst Cxblevision of California, Inc- (''Hearst Cablevision"); and
WIDUREAS, Hearst Cablevision now desires to assign and transfer all of its
right, title and interest in and to said franchise to Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P., a
California limited partnership (nSrennzorn); and
WHffiEAS, the proposed assignment and transfer by Hearst Cablevision to
Brenmor will be made pursuant to the terms and conditons of a certain nCATV
Franchise Assumption Agreement,- a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhi-bit "A''
and incorporated herein by reference; and
WA$. the City Council finds and determines that it would be in the
best interests of the City and the subscribers to the cable television service that the
proposed transfer of the franchise be approved,
NOW, TBIDREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of
.Saratoga as follows:
-I-
I. The proposed asmept and transfer of the cable television
franchise by Hearst Cablevision to Brenmor is hereby approved.
2. The form and content of the CATV Franchise Assumption Agreement
attached hereto as Exhibit "Aft is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Clerk are
hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City.
s * s
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council, of the City of
Saratoga held on the 20th dap of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-2
'Mayor
r
ib
12/14 %89 11:46
$ 408 727 5295
HEARST CABLE.
02
ur UMLI rUKIN I H W. Gene Musselman
Lxccutive Vice President
December 13, 3,989 Chief Operating Otficer
Todd Argow
muniky ervices Director
ci of/ ratoga
1377 tvale Ave.
Saratoga, A 95070
Dear Todd:
Enclosed is a copy of the CATV Franchise Agreement with the
changes that were requested.
With all due respect, 1 believe, that your negotiations on
behalf of the City of Saratoga accomplished what you set out to
do, i.e., build into the Franchise Agreement protection for
Saratoga cable subscribers, provide for greater control by the
City over future transfers, and to secure funds for public
educational and government access. All of these objectives were
accomplished and are provide for as follows:
1) Should reasonable evidence exist that the cable system
is not performing as it should, operator is required to
perform tests and submit satifactory evidence to the
City that no inadequacies exists.
2) Right of the City to levy fines, sanctions and
penalties relative to inadequate performance.
3) Agreement by operator to maintain a level of subscriber
complaints not to exceed specified levels.
4) The establishment of conditions precedent to future
transfer or change in control of the franchise.
5) cabling of city Council chambers up to_ a cost of
$8.,000.
6) Payment by Hearst and Brenmor of a total of $60,000 for
purchase of Local Origination /Public Access equipment.
7) Extension of service to approximately 70 homes
previously without cable service.
8) Establishment of a non -- refundable transfer fee to be
paid to the City in conjunction with any future
transfers of the franchise.
2700 SCO1 T ROUI FVAno. SAN I A UAHA. (�A 9VISO (408) 727 -3900
12.14 %99 11:47 g 409 727 5295 HEARST CABLE _ 03
It
Todd Argow
December 13, 1989
Page Two
The list above is not intended to be all inclusive but simply
summarizes the major concessions made by Hearst and Brenmor in
our negotiations to transfer the cable television franchise.
Thank you for your cooperation and many thanks for your
friendship these past years.
sincerely,
W. Gene �Musselman
Executive Vice President
Chief operating Officer
WGM:ml
Enclosure
This AGREEMENT, which becomes effective upon execution by the
parties, is made and entered into this . day of December,
1989, by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal
corporation of the State of California (CITY), HEARST
CABLEVISION OF CALIFORNIA, a Delaware corporation ( HEARST), and
BRENMOR CABLE PARTNERS, L.P., a California limited partnership
(BRENMOR) consisting of HERNANDEZ COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a
Colorado corporation, its general partner (HCI, and INTERMEDIA
PARTNERS, a California limited partnership (IM), its limited
partner, collectively referred to herein as GRANTEE.
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 4 -25 of the Saratoga
Municipal Code, and Ordinances No. 38.79 and 71.36 and
Resolution No. 2251, CITY, HEARST and GRANTEE do hereby agree
that GRANTEE shall be substituted in the place and stead of
HEARST as the GRANTEE for the purposes of operating,
constructing, installing and maintaining a cable communications
system (System) within CITY, with the following additional terms
and conditions:
1. Assignment. HEARST does hereby fully transfer and
assign all of its rights, title and interest under said
franchise to GRANTEE, thereby retaining and reserving no rights,
title and interest against CITY.
2. Waiver_ and Disc rqe by Heax . HEARST does hereby
waive and relinquish any and all claims, demands, actions or
causes of action it may have against CITY arising out of or in
any way connected with said franchise agreement or any other
matter. HEARST represents that there is presently no suit,
action, administrative proceeding, arbitration, or other
proceeding pending with respect to the System or franchise. It
is expressly understood that this Agreement constitutes a waiver
and discharge of all claims arising out of the relationship
between CITY and HEARST. It is expressly agreed that all rights
under Section 1542 of the California Civil Code are expressly
waived.
3. Assumption__ bX___GRANTEE. GRANTEE does hereby expressly
and unreservedly agree to assume and fully perform all of the
duties and obligations required of GRANTEE under said franchise
agreement, as herein modified.
- 1 -
4. Warranties by GRANTEE. GRANTEE does hereby warrant
and promise that it possesses superior experience, character,
and background including, but not limited to, financial, legal,
and technical abilities and resources required to operate,
construct, install, and maintain the System in the CITY.
GRANTEE further warrants that it is duly organized, validly
existing, and in good standing under the laws of California, and
has the power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to
carry out the transactions contemplated hereby.
5. Severability. If any term, covenant, condition, or
provisions of this Agreement or the application thereof to any
person or circumstances is, to any extent, invalid or
unenforceable, the remaining terms, covenants, conditions, and
provisions of this Agreement, or the application of such term,
covenant, condition, or provision to persons or circumstances
other than those to which it is held invalid or unenforceable,
shall not be affected thereby, and each term, covenant,
condition, and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and
enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.
6. Change in Enabling Law. The parties agree that if
during the term of this Agreement, any changes in any state or
federal case or statutory law expand the CITY's power to
regulate GRANTEE under said franchise agreement, the parties
shall in good faith negotiate regarding amendments to the
franchise agreement as authorized by any such law.
7. Insurance, Deposits, Bonds. Upon closing of the sale,
GRANTEE shall deliver to CITY proof of compliance with all
insurance, deposit and bonding requirements of Resolution 2259
and Article 4 -25 of the Municipal Code. HEARST represents that
it has fully complied with such requirements up to and including
the date of the closing.
8. Franchise Renewal. Both parties to this Agreement
hereby agree to initiate franchise renewal negotiations by
September 1, 1990, in anticipation of the franchise expiration
on September 3, 1992. GRANTEE agrees to submit to CITY a plan
to expand the channel capacity of the system to 60 channels (450
MHz of bandwidth). Both parties agree to negotiate for such
system expansion in good faith.
9. Consumer Protection.
A. Audit of Alleged Inadequate Performance. If at
any time, after a public hearing before the City Council with at
least thirty (30) days' notice to GRANTEE, GRANTOR determines
that reasonable evidence exists that the System is not operating
in accordance with required technical specifications, it may
require GRANTEE to perform tests and analyses directed toward
such suspected inadequacies. GRANTEE shall fully cooperate with
GRANTOR in performing such testing and shall prepare results and
a report, if requested, within thirty days after notice. Such
report shall include the following information:
- 2-
(1) The nature of the complaint or problem
which precipitated the special test.
(2) What system component was tested.
(3) The equipment used and procedures employed
in the test.
(4) The method, if any by which such complaint
or problem was resolved.
(5) Any other information pertinent to said
tests and analyses which may be required to ensure compliance
with Section 4- 25.210 of the Municipal Code.
(6) GRANTOR may hire a consultant to supervise
the foregoing tests, review their results, and advise GRANTOR of
his findings. If the findings of the independent consultant
establish inadequate system performance, GRANTEE shall reimburse
GRANTOR or the costs of hiring the consultant, including the
costs of verifying compliance with any recommended corrective
measures, up to a maximum of $5,000
(1) Regular, bills for service shall be rendered
monthly, unless changed with at least sixty (60) days notice to
the customer, or unless service is rendered for a period of less
than one (1) month. Bills shall be rendered as promptly as
possible. All bills shall contain a telephone number and a
mailing address for billing inquiries or disputes.
(2) At the time of connection to service,
subscribers will be notified of the procedures used by GRANTEE
to resolve billing disputes.
C. Quality of Service. The quality of GRANTEE's
service refers to the services associated with day -to -day
interruptions of service; disconnection; rebates and credits;
signal quality; and the provision to customers or potential
customers of information on billing or services. In order to
assess the quality of service, GRANTEE shall survey all
subscribers at least once every other calendar year, beginning
May 1, 1990. This shall be accomplished as follows: The
GRANTEE shall also include along with this same bill a statement
that the survey has been sent to each subscriber as part of the
biannual quality of service assessment required to be conducted
by GRANTOR: that quality of service refers to GRANTEE's
response to customer complaints; billing; interruptions of
service; disconnection; rebates and credits; signal quality; the
provision to customers or potential customers of information on
billing or services; that if they provide their name and
telephone number they may be contacted for additional
- 3 -
information. As an alternative to the summary, actual responses
may be submitted to the GRANTOR at the GRANTOR's request.
Should GRANTOR make such a request, GRANTOR will be subject to
the same time considerations as GRANTEE, and will submit a
summary to the GRANTEE in a form like that previously produced
by the GRANTEE.
D. Level of Subscriber Complaints.
(1) GRANTEE's assumption of this franchise
shall constitute an agreement by GRANTEE to maintain a level of
subscriber complaints not to exceed the standards hereinafter
described. The total percentage of monthly subscriber
complaints from within the City of Saratoga, out of the total
number of Saratoga subscribers, shall not exceed:
(a)
4.4%
during
calendar
year
1990.
(b)
4.0%
during
calendar
year
1991.
(c)
3.8%
during
calendar
year
1992.
(d)
3.6%
during
calendar
year
1993.
Complaints will include, but are not limited to, problems
associated with quality of reception, service problems and loss
of service. Specifically excluded from complaint calculations
will be those complaints which are ultimately found to be the
result of customer -owned and /or installed equipment, acts of
God, and, in addition, other such problems as may be determined
by the GRANTOR to be beyond the GRANTEE's control. In the event
GRANTEE fails to meet the standards as herein above stated for
three (3) consecutive months, GRANTEE may be found to be in
default of this Agreement, and may be subject to the penalties
and remedies as hereinafter identified in Section F below.
GRANTEE
(2) To determine compliance with this section,
shall provide GRANTOR with a monthly report identifying
the number
constitute
that month.
attention c
(10th) day
the format
provide sa
violation c
GRANTOR, be
of subscriber complaints and the percentage they
out of the total subscriber base within the City of
Said report will be due to GRANTOR, to the
f the Community Services Director, on the tenth
following the preceding month, and shall be done in
as identified in Attachment B. Repeated failure to
id report when required constitutes a separate
f this Agreement, and may, at the option of the
subject to the fines set forth below in Section F.
- 4 -
1.
E. Remedies for Franchise violations.
(1) GRANTEE shall be subject to the provisions
of this paragraph for any material breach of the ordinance or
franchise agreement unless said breach is caused by events
beyond the control or GRANTEE. Examples of events beyond the
control of GRANTEE are strikes, acts of God, earthquakes,
hurricanes, tornadoes, lightning, loss of electrical power to
its equipment, electrical interference caused by third party
equipment, and similar such events.
(2) Subject to the procedures hereinafter set
forth, if the GRANTEE fails to perform any material obligation
under the franchise or fails to perform a material obligation in
a timely manner, the GRANTOR may, at its option:
(a) Assess against the GRANTEE the
following monetary sanctions:
1) If the system has less than five
thousand (5,000) subscribers, two hundred fifty dollars
($250.00) for each day the violation continues.
2) If the system has more than five
thousand (5,000) subscribers, five hundred dollars ($500.00)
for each day the violation continues.
have materially
GRANTOR may di
subscriber whose
such violation,
otherwise charged
(b) In the event such violation shall
degraded the quality of service to subscribers,
rect GRANTEE to issue as a credit to any
service has been interrupted as a result of
in the following percentages of the monthly fee
to said subscribers:
1) 24 consecutive house: 5% rebate
of the monthly fee;
2) 24 to 48 consecutive hours: 15%
rebate of the monthly fee;
3) 48 to 72 consecutive hours: 25%
rebate of the monthly fee;
4) Greater than 72 consecutive
hours: 100% rebate of the monthly fee.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall GRANTEE be
required to credit to any one subscriber any more than the
equivalent. of 100% of the monthly fee in any calendar year; and,
further provided that no such rebate shall be required where the
incident in question has occurred more than sixty (60) days
prior to the violation which is the subject of this Subsection.
- 5 -
(c) Terminate the franchise, as provided
in Article 4- 25.060 of the Saratoga Municipal Code.
(3) The sanctions set forth in this paragraph
are subject to the following procedures.
(a) The City Manager must notify GRANTEE
in writing by Certified Mail, Return Receipt of the exact
specifics of the alleged violation of the ordinance and /or
franchise agreement.
(b) Upon receipt of the notice described
in subparagraph (a) directly above, GRANTEE shall have thirty
(30) days to cure said alleged violation, or state, in writing,
why it believes the allegations of violations are incorrect or,
a combination thereof.
(c) If the alleged violations are not
cured in the reasonable opinion of the City Manager, or, if the
statement submitted by GRANTEE is not dispositive of the
allegations of violations in the reasonable opinion of the City
Manager, then the City Manager may refer the matter to the City
Council for a full hearing on thirty (30) days written notice to
GRANTEE.
(d) After a full hearing, giving due
opportunity to GRANTEE to present its arguments fully and the
City Council shall issue its decision in writing setting forth a
detailed explanation of its findings of fact and the reason for
its conclusions.
10. Transfer of Ownership or Control. In addition to the
change of ownership provisions set forth in Section 4- 25.080(d)
of the City's Municipal Code:
A. The GRANTEE shall promptly notify the GRANTOR of
any change in, or transfer of, or acquisition by any other party
of, control of the GRANTEE. The word "control," as used in this
section, is not limited to major stockholders but includes
actual working control. A rebuttable presumption that a
transfer of control has occurred shall arise upon the
acquisition or transfer by any person or group of persons of ten
percent of the ownership interest of the GRANTEE. Every change,
transfer of, or acquisition of control of the GRANTEE shall make
the franchise subject to cancellation unless and until the
GRANTOR shall have consented thereto, which consent will not be
unreasonably withheld. For the purpose of determining whether
it shall consent to such change, in transfer of, or acquisition
of control, the GRANTOR may inquire into the qualifications of
the prospective transferee party, and the GRANTEE shall assist
the GRANTOR in any such inquiry.
B. In seeking the GRANTOR's consent to any change in,
transfer of, or acquisition by' any other party or control of
GRANTEE, the GRANTEE shall have the responsibility:
(1) To show to the satisfaction of the GRANTOR
whether the proposed purchaser, transferee, or assignee (the
"proposed transferee "), which in the case of a corporation,
shall include all officers, directors, and all persons having a
legal or equitable interest of twenty -five percent or more of
its voting stock. And, in the case of a partnership shall
include all general Partners and any Limited Partners holding
twenty -five percent or more of the Partnership interest.
(a) Has ever been convicted or held
liable for acts involving moral turpitude.
(b) Has ever had a judgment in an action
for fraud, deceit or misrepresentation entered against it, her,
him or them by any court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Has pending any legal claim, lawsuit
or administrative proceeding arising out of or involving a cable
system.
(2) To establish, to the satisfaction of the
GRANTOR, the financial solvency of the proposed transferee by
submitting such reasonable_ financial data for the proposed
transferee as the GRANTOR may request.
(3) To establish to the satisfaction of the
GRANTOR that the financial and technical capability of the
proposed transferee is such as shall enable it to maintain and
operate the cable system for the remaining term of the franchise
under the existing franchise terms.
C. The GRANTOR agrees that any financial institution
having a pledge of the franchise or its assets for the
advancement of money for the construction and /or operation of
the franchise shall have the right to notify the GRANTOR that it
or its designee, satisfactory to the GRANTOR, will take control
and operate the cable television system, in the event of a
GRANTEE default in its financial obligations. Further, said
financial institution shall also submit a plan for such
operation that will insure continued service and compliance with
all franchise requirements during the term the financial
institution exercises control over the system. The financial
institution shall not exercise control over the system for a
period exceeding one year unless extended by the GRANTOR at its
discretion and during said period of time it shall have the
right to petition the GRANTOR to transfer franchise to another
GRANTEE. If the GRANTOR finds that such transfer after
considering the legal, financial, character, technical and other
public interest qualities of the applicant are satisfactory, the
GRANTOR will consent to an assignment of the franchise, which
consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
- 7 -
D. The consent or approval of the GRANTOR to this or
to any other transfer of the GRANTEE shall not constitute a
waiver or release of the rights of the GRANTOR in and to the
streets, and any transfer shall, by its terms, be expressly
subordinate to the terms and conditions of this franchise.
E. In no event shall a transfer of ownership or
control be approved without the successor in interest becoming a
signatory to the franchise agreement and any amendments thereon
imposed as a condition of such transfer. Furthermore, the City
Council may require increases in a faithful performance bond in
the form prescribed by the city attorney.
11. Community Access Television.
A. Channel Assignment. GRANTEE recognizes that
Saratoga's Community Access channel has historically existed on
Cable Channel 6; and, in light of this fact, GRANTEE hereby
agrees that Saratoga's Community Access Channel will remain on
Cable Channel 6 throughout the duration of GRANTEE's franchise.
B. Cabling of City Council Chambers. In recognition
of the valuable public service which would be realized through
the televising of City Council Meetings, GRANTEE agrees to make
changes to its distribution system and "hard wire" the City
Council Chambers so that the meetings held therein can be
televised live on the system's community access channel, or on
such other channel as mutually agreed upon between GRANTEE and
CITY. "Hard wiring" shall include the provision and
installation of cable, audio video wiring, outlets, modulators,
and other such equipment as may be mutually deemed necessary.
Said installation shall allow for the connection of three
cameras to controller /switcher. GRANTEE agrees to provide city
with a plan for the wiring of the City Council chambers which
shall be submitted to City approval. GRANTOR agrees to complete
said project within six (6) months of date GRANTOR approves
GRANTEE's plan for said installation. This project will be at
GRANTEE's sole expense up to $8,000. GRANTEE further agrees to
provide reasonable technical assistance to GRANTOR to ensure the
successful initial activation of the entire system and
televising of the full meeting.
C. Provision of Community Access Production
Equipment. GRANTEE agrees to provide to the Saratoga Community
Access Cable TV Foundation, or to GRANTOR in behalf of said
Foundation, $30,000 toward the purchase of the video production
equipment to be paid $15,000 within six months of closing and
$15,000 within thirteen months of closing.
- 8 -
12. Service Extension. GRANTEE agrees to make available
cable television service to
following streets, collectively aknowneSasenthe l;Burg °n the
Area ": "Burgundy Wine
A• Burgundy Way
B. Chablis Court
C. Riesling Court
D. Granite Way
E. Zinfandel Court
F. Pinnacle Court
G. Crisp Avenue
H. Andrew Court
I. Haun Court
GRANTEE agrees that said service shall be operating within
twelve (12) months of the date the transfer of the franchise to
GRANTEE is approved by"CITY. GRANTEE further agrees to
CITY with a feasibility report concerning he g Provide
television services to those areas closely adjacentstonthatc area
defined above, namely:
A. Old Oak Way
B. Live Oak Way
C. Versailles Way
D. Puente Way
E. Portions of Farwell Avenue
F. Oriole Road
G. Valley Vista Drive
13. Transfer Fee: Any request for a transfer of ownership
or control shall be accompanied by
application fee of five thousand dollars a nonrefundable transfer
($5,000).
CITY OF SARATOGA, a California
Municipal Corporation
By:
Mayor
HEARST CABLEVISION OF CALIFORNIA
(dba HEARST CABLEVISION OF SARATOGA)
By:
President
BRENMOR CABLE PARTNERS, a California Limited Partnership
By: HERNANDEZ COMMUNICATIONS, INC., the General Partner
By:
Ray J. Hernandez, President
10 -
Cablaw'
H arst
OF CALIFORNIA w. Gene Musselman
Executive Vice President
Chief Operating Officer
December 13, 1989
odd Argow
C un'ty ervices Director
City ratoga
1377 tvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Argow:
Pursuant to our discussion this morning regarding the transfer
of the cable television franchise from Hearst Cablevision of
California Inc. ( "Hearst ") to Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P.
( "Brenmor "), Hearst hereby agrees to issue to the City a check
in the amount of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for the
purchase of Local Origination /Public Access equipment. This
payment is conditioned upon the City Council approving the
transfer of the cable television franchise at its Wednesday,
December 20, 1989 meeting. Payment will be made by Hearst to
the City at the time of the close of the sale.
Sincerely,
�
/1
`�. Gene Musselman
Executive Vice President
Chief Operating Officer
WGM:ml
cc: Raymond E. Joslin
Ronald S. Diana, Esq.
2700 SCOTT BOULEVARD, SANTA CLARA, CA 95050 (408) 727 -3900
David G. Rozzelle
General Partner
September 25, 1989
Harold Toppel, Esq.
Atkinson & Farasyn
P.O. Box 279
Saratoga, CA 94042
Dear Mr. Toppel:
INTERMEDIA PARTNERS
"If better is possible,
then good is not enough"
Re: Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P.
I am writing to provide you with information concerning the financial qualifications
of Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P., the proposed purchaser of the assets of Hearst
CableVision of California, Inc., and to discuss, in general terms our operating plans for
the Hearst systems.
Brenmor and InterMedia
Brenmor is a limited partnership composed of two partners: the general partner
is Hernandez Communications, Inc. and the limited partner is InterMedia Partners.
While each partner will contribute equity to the partnership, it is InterMedia that will
contribute the majority of the equity and it is InterMedia ' that will supply the bank
financing that will complete the acquisition financial package. At your request, I have
enclosed a copy of the Brenmor partnership agreement.
InterMedia is a limited partnership formed over a year ago for the sole purpose
of acquiring, operating and holding cable television systems. Unlike all other limited
partnerships in the cable area, InterMedia Partners is composed only of financial
institutions, banks, large corporations and pension funds. There are no individuals
holding limited partnership interests in InterMedia. Moreover, InterMedia is an operating
fund, as opposed to a financial fund. Each of our limited partners invested with the
idea that the acquired properties would be held and operated as long -term investments.
In short, we offer the citizens of Saratoga the prospect of stable, financially sound
ownership of their cable television system.
2785 Mitchell Drive • Suite 105 • P 0. Box 30600 • Walnut Creek, California 94598 • Tel: (415) 256 -8043 • FAX: (415) 256 -8713
Harold Toppel, Esq.
Page 2
September 25, 1989
The limited partners of InterMedia- are as follows:
1. Bank of America
2. The Bank of New York
3. Chrysler Corporation Master Retirement Fund
4. Equitable Life Assurance Society
5. Equitable Variable Life Insurance Company
6. Integrity Life Insurance Company
7. Mellon Bank
8. New York Life Insurance Company
9. Salomon Brothers Holding Company, Inc.
10. Sumitomo Corporation
11. TCI Development Corporation
12. Teachers Insurance & Annuity Association
These institutions and the general partner of InterMedia Partners have contracted
to provide over $100,000,000 in equity. The limited partners will contribute 99% of the
equity and the general will contribute 1%. The total equity, when combined with
available debt, will provide the partnership with total acquisition funds far in excess of
that needed to close the Hearst transaction. Pursuant to paragraph 7 (d) of the
InterMedia partnership agreement, the general partner simply calls, on ten days notice,
the necessary equity from the limited partners to complete an acquisition. The actual
capital call for the Hearst acquisition will be done at the time of closing on the Hearst
properties. The pertinent language of the partnership agreement is as follows:
The balance of the capital contributions of the Limited
Partners shall be paid in installments on ten (10) days'
written notice in the following manner: (i) as the General
L
Harold Toppel, Esq.
Page 3
September 25, 1989
Partner determines is necessary or appropriate for identified
purchases of or investments in cable television corporations
A copy of paragraph 7 (d) is attached for your review.
Finally, please be assured that our limited partners cannot withdraw from their
partnership commitment except in very carefully defined circumstances. Pursuant to
paragraph 8 of the agreement, copy attached, "A Limited Partner may not withdraw
from the Partnership in whole or in part prior to dissolution of the Partnership" unless
permitted to withdraw by the general partner, or unless continued participation would
result in a violation of law.
The general partner of InterMedia Partners is InterMedia Capital Management
( "ICM "). ICM is, itself, a limited partnership. The general partners of ICM are Leo J.
Hindery, Jr., Edward M. Allen and David G. Rozzelle. These three individuals, in effect,
control ICM and InterMedia Partners. Ed and I explained our qualifications to Todd
Argow in our earlier meeting with him. Subsequently, we sent Todd a pamphlet
describing the management talent that Brenmor will provide. For your convenience, a
copy of the pamphlet is enclosed.
Attached hereto is a copy of the August 31, 1989, IP balance sheet and income
statement. As explained above, the unique nature of InterMedia significantly reduces
the usefulness of these documents. As of the moment, InterMedia incurs ongoing
liabilities and pays them. Other than the right to draw the total equity pledged by its
limited partners, there are no assets or bank balances of significance. In essence it is
the nature of InterMedia's limited partners that assures the financial soundness of
InterMedia. As you no doubt noticed, the limiteds virtually represent a "Who's Who" of
the cable lending and investment community. The Bank of New York will lead a
syndicate of banks which will lend InterMedia the money it needs to acquire and
operate the Hearst properties. (The banks have already formally committed to lend
InterMedia the funds necessary to do a two -stage closing on the Hearst properties,
although it appears that only one closing will occur.) It is likely that all or substantially
all of the members of the syndicate will be equity holders in InterMedia. Overall, we
believe we have structured a very. tight, sound and imaginative financial package which
is unequalled.
Finally, let me address one issue which has been raised by Todd -- the role of
Tele- Communications, Inc. in InterMedia. TCI is a limited partner with the same rights,
privileges and obligations as the other limited partners. Aside from the clear legal
Harold Toppel, Esq.
Page 4
September 25, 1989
restrictions on TCI's role given its limited partner status, the stature of each of our
limited partners precludes any one of them from exerting undue influence on the
operation of the partnership. We must be scrupulously fair and we will be.
Although I am certain you understand the legal limitations imposed on our limited
partners when it comes to the management of the Hearst properties, enclosed is a
letter from Gregg Vignos, our business counsel, which confirms that our limited
partners will have no right to interfere with the management of the Hearst properties.
Operating Plans
Ed Allen and I have already addressed the employees of the Hearst systems
and have assured them that their jobs are secure. We do not intend to reduce the
number of service representatives, technicians or vehicles. Nor do we plan to reduce
office hours, service response time, the system's local origination commitments, or
customer relations efforts. Bill Haggarty, the present marketing director for Hearst
Cablevision, has agreed to serve as the general manager of the Hearst properties,
including the Saratoga system. Bill has been with the system virtually the entire time
that Hearst has owned it and has served as Gene Musselman's number two for many
years. Given Bill's knowledge of the community and the system, we believe Saratoga
will hardly notice the change in ownership. Even the telephone number to the general
manager's office will remain the same -- Todd will be able to contact our GM as easily
as he now contacts Gene. In short, other than a name change -- probably South Bay
CableVision -- the ownership change should be transparent to the system's
subscribers. Moreover, we believe we are good enough to improve customer relations
and service over time, mindful as we are that Hearst's efforts in those areas will be
difficult to top.
As for the autonomy of the local manager, Ed and I believe that the local
manager is, in essence, the president of his own business. While "corporate" will be
involved in annual operating and capital budgets, all of the day -to -day operating
decisions will be made by Bill Haggarty.
In conclusion, we respectfully submit that InterMedia Partners is clearly qualified
to acquire and operate the Hearst cable properties. We offer highly experienced
management skills, knowledge of the industry, a commitment to long -term ownership
and a financial base of over $100,000,000 in equity committed by partners whose very
names assure their ability to perform when asked.
Z..
Harold Toppel, Esq.
Page 5
September 25, 1989
If you need anything further for the council to consider, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
David G. Rozzelle
General Partner
cc: Todd W. Argow (all w /enc)
Ray Hernandez
Gene Musselman
Bill Haggarty
7
David G. Rozzelle
General Partner
October 11, 1989
Ms. Deborah Acosta
Town Manager
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Civic Center
Los Gatos, CA 95030
0012 1989
INTERMEDIA PARTNERS
"If better is possible,
then good is not enough"
Sandra Faithfull, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Milpitas
455 East Calaveras Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035
Ms. Rosemary Pierce Mr. Paul H.B. Tong
Chief Administrative Officer City Manager
City of Monte Sereno City of Newark
18041 Saratoga - Los Gatos Road 37101 Newark Blvd.
Monte Sereno, CA 95030 Newark, CA 94560
Todd W. Argow
Dir f munity Services
City o a
13777 Fruitv venue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Madames and Sirs:
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Re: Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P.
In anticipation of your meeting of October 13, 1989, and pursuant to a discussion
with Deborah Acosta of Los Gatos, I am writing to provide you certain information
which may prove relevant to your expressed concerns.
1. Finances. Brenmor and its lead bank, The Bank of New York, have
agreed upon the material terms of a loan facility in excess of
$100,000,000, but we are still negotiating some of the finer points of the
term sheet. When the formal commitment is issued, I will advise you.
The Bank of New York (along with the rest of InterMedia's limited partners)
has already committed equity to the transaction as well. The loan and
equity far exceed the amount needed to close the acquisition.
2785 Mitchell Drive • Suite 105 • P 0. Box 30600 • Walnut Creek, California 94598 • Tel: (415) 256 -8043 • FAX: (415) 256 -8713
October 11, 1989
Page 2
2. Structure. Attached to this letter is a diagram of the structure of
Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P. There are two partners in Brenmor:
Hernandez Communications, Inc. (Ray Hernandez' personal corporation)
is the general partner; InterMedia Partners is the limited partner. The
structure is necessitated by the tax code and provides certain tax benefits
to the seller of the cable properties -- Hearst. It is likely that Brenmor will
be folded into InterMedia Partners in two to three years, leaving only
InterMedia and its general partner InterMedia Capital Management. If it
is determined to collapse Brenmor, we will, of course, advise you of the
plan to do so and, if necessary, will ask your permission for the change
even though it could be considered a pro forma restructuring in many
ways.
3. Control of Brenmor (the "TCI" Issue -- Part 1). Attached to this letter
is a copy of an opinion letter from InterMedia's corporate counsel,
Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, describing the rights of InterMedia's limited
partners. Mr. Vignos points out in his letter that the InterMedia agreement
expressly provides that, '[t]he Limited Partners shall not take part in the
control, management, direction or operation of the business of the
Partnership...." (Emphasis supplied). The limited partners have only the
right to approve the sale of all or substantially all of the partnership's
assets, the dissolution of the partnership, the amendment of the
partnership agreement, the admission of a new general partner or the
removal of a general partner for cause. As a limited partner in Brenmor,
InterMedia, in turn, cannot control or manage Brenmor. A copy of the
Brenmor partnership agreement is attached for your review. The Brenmor
agreement has been filed with and reviewed by the Federal
Communications Commission in Washington, D.c. Thus, the limited
partners of InterMedia, including TCI, are separated by law and by two
layers of partnerships from controlling the operation of Brenmor's cable
properties.
The only general partner of InterMedia Partners, as stated in Mr.
Vignos opinion letter, is InterMedia Capital Management ( "ICM "). The only
general partners of ICM are Leo Hindery, Ed Allen and Dave Rozzelle. If
you will recall, biographies of the key players in Brenmor were provided
to you earlier in the blue pamphlet we sent along to introduce ourselves.
Ed and I, along with the other members of ICM's cable management
October 11, 1989
Page 3
team, will provide administrative services to Brenmor pursuant to a.
consulting agreement reached with Brenmor. A copy of that agreement
is also attached for your perusal. Again, the agreement has been
submitted to and reviewed by the FCC.
4. Local Autonomy. A related issue is the structure of the local
management and the degree of autonomy that the general manager of the
system will have. As stated in the blue pamphlet and as Ray, Ed and I
explained to most of you in person, Brenmor intends to place tremendous
discretion in the local management of the cable systems. The general
manager will be Bill Haggarty. Bill has been the "Number Two" at Hearst
since it acquired the cable properties. Bill represents talent, experience,
judgment and continuity. He will have the same authority that Gene
Musselman presently has to operate the systems. Brenmor intends to
do an annual budget, built from the ground up with the assistance of Bill
and his department heads. Once the budget is completed, Bill will only
come to "corporate" if he wants to deviate from the budget in a material
way.
As for the other employees of Hearst, Ed and I have met with all of
them as a group and asked them to stay and work for Brenmor. The
same people will still run service calls, undertake installs and answer the
telephones. Aside from the name change (to South Bay CableVision), we
are hopeful our subscribers will take little note of the change of ownership.
5. The TCI Issue (Part II). Finally, allow me to address a sensitive issue
that concerns some of you -- the fact that Ray Hernandez is associated
with TCI and the fact that TCI is a limited partner in InterMedia. As I
understand the issue, it is feared that Brenmor is a stalking horse for TCI
and that TCI will come in after the approval of the transfer to Brenmor and
operate the cable systems. This concern, which is shared by some of
you, while logical, is completely unfounded.
First, Ray Hernandez is leaving TCI this month. He will devote full
time to Brenmor and to his consulting business. As I explained to some
of you, it was Ray's experience with acquisitions at TCI and his personal
relationship with Ray Joslin, the head of Hearst's cable operations, that
started him on the path that led to Brenmor. Moreover, within the scope
of his employment at TCI he became familiar with InterMedia because of
the Cooke transaction which involved a consortium of six cable companies
led by InterMedia (the Cooke deal was widely reported in newspapers at
October 11, 1989
Page 4
the time). InterMedia was involved in a tax certificate structure in the
Cooke transaction, had already had extensive meetings with the FCC on
the proper structure and approach to use and those facts, among others,
led Ray to seek InterMedia's involvement in his tax certificated transaction.
Therefore, the "coincidence" presented by Ray's relationship with TCI and
the fact that TCI is a limited partner in InterMedia are explainable and
logical events.
Second, a consultant to Milpitas asked that we assure him that no
"side agreement" exists with TCI pertaining to the management and control
of the cable properties. Logically, of course, we cannot prove the
nonexistence of a side agreement with TCI, or any other entity for that
matter; therefore, I can only offer you my written statement that no such
agreement exists. I can also offer you the logical comfort which should
flow from the list of InterMedia's investors. TCI is not the largest
corporation to invest in InterMedia -- Sumitomo is. TCI is not the most
financially sophisticated investor either. That honor surely belongs to one
or more of.the banks and insurance companies who are investors with us.
TCI is not the only company in the cable business who has invested with
us. Again, Sumitomo is involved in the cable business in Japan. Finally,
aside from ICM's legal obligation to treat all of the limited partners in
InterMedia equally, the sophistication, integrity and resources of each of
our investors should provide you with the comfort that the managers of
the fund cannot favor one investor at the expense of any other(s).
Finally, while TCI is more than capable of defending itself, we
should point out that InterMedia sought out TCI's involvement in the fund;
TCI did not approach InterMedia. InterMedia sought out TCI because we
suspected that if TCI invested as a limited partner, we could take
advantage of the cost savings associated with TCI's master contracts with
programmers and equipment suppliers. Once we ascertained that our
supposition was essentially correct, we welcomed TCI's investment. We
still believe our decision was prudent because it will relieve, to some
extent, the upward pressure on cable rates caused by program cost
increases which have been substantial and are expected to continue. In
short, we thought having TCI as a limited partner would give us an edge
in a very competitive marketplace.
I apologize for this lengthy letter. I also appreciate that the bulk of the
attachments is somewhat daunting. I have tried to be thorough because the meeting
2F
October 11, 1989
Page 5
on October 13 presents an opportunity to save Brenmor and your cities a lot of time.
This is especially important to Hearst because of the projected closing in early January.
As always, if Ray, Ed or I can help you in any way, please do not hesitate to
call.
cc: Ray Hernandez (all w/o enc.)
Ed Allen
Leo Hindery
Gene Musselman
Bill Haggarty
Richard Littorno, Esq.
Organizational Structure
BRENMOR CABLE PARTNE t`'
Hernandez
InterMedia
ommunications,Inc
Partners
20%
s0%
Limited Partner
General Partner
INTERMEDIA PARTNERS
InterMedia Various Institutional
Capital Investors
Management
1 1% 99%
General Partner Limited Partners
INTERMEDTA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
Hindery
Allen
Rozzelle
LGen. Partners
Various Employees
and Professional
Advisors
Limited Partners
EXHIBIT B —
INTERMEDIA PARTNERS
David G. Rozzelle
General Partner
"If better is possible,
then good is not enough"
November 8, 1989
Mr. Todd Argow
''6Qjn mu ity S rvices Director
City , ayaf�ga
City f�,�
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P.
Dear Todd:
Enclosed, as I promised at our meeting in Los Gatos, is a letter from The Bank
of New York indicating that it has committed to lend the money needed (along with
equity and some subordinated debt) to acquire the Hearst properties. You will note
that the loan facility may also be used by InterMedia to acquire other properties using
another limited partnership called Robin Cable Systems, L.P. Our financing is now in
place. I am also enclosing an in -house Balance Sheet for Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P.
I am hopeful that the formal commitment answers the last of your questions
concerning Brenmor's financial qualifications. Based on your contributions to the
meeting in Los Gatos, I assume you are fully aware of how the consulting relationship
between Hernandez Communications, Inc. and InterMedia operates. Nevertheless, if
you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to call Ed or me.
Finally, allow me to say that I am aware of the exchange of correspondence
between Hal Toppel and Ron Diana. I believe that Ed and I have always responded
quickly, honestly and cordially to any and all requests you have made of us. We
advised you of events that affected the transfer (such as the hiring of Bill Haggarty),
before they were common knowledge, even within the system itself. I would ask that
you consider these actions as evidence of our desire to work with you to provide
quality service to the citizens of Saratoga over the next decade. If you are planning to
2785 Mitchell Drive - Suite 105 - P 0. Box 30600 - Walnut Creek, California 94598 - Tel: (415) 256 -8043 - FAX: 1415) 256 -8713
Mr. Todd Argow
November 8, 1989
Page 2
advise the City in a negative fashion, I would ask you to give Ed and me a chance to
address your concerns with the council members before an agenda item is scheduled.
Cordially,
..� 30—Mc
�• 1M •
David G. Rozzelle
cc: Ray Hernandez
Gene Musselman
0
THE BANK OF __Ns,EA1�, YOLK
NEW YORK'S FIRST BANK - FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON
530 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW PORK, N.Y. 10036
October 30, 1989
Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P.
235 Montgomery Street
Suite 420
San Francisco, CA 94104
The Bank of New York has agreed to act as Agent on a $120 million
senior credit facility and has issued a $65 million commitment to
Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P. and Robin Cable Systems, L.P. subject to
the terms and conditions of the Commitment Letter and Term Sheet
dated October 20, 1989. The proceeds of the loan will be used, in
part, to acquire cable properties presently owned by Hearst
Cablevision of California, Inc.
Sincerely,
FCaren J. `finder
Assistant vice President
BRENMOR CABLE PARTNERS L P
BALANCE SHEET
(Unaudited)
i
y
BRENMOR CABLE PARTNERS, L, P,
BALANCE SHEET
OCTOBER 12, 1989
(Unaudited)
ASSETS
Cash $ 1,000
Deferred financing costs 51,000
Deferred investment costs 36,200
88,200
LIABILITIES AND PARTNER'S CAPITAL
Payable to limited partner $ 87,200
Redeemable partner's capital 210
Commitments
Partner's capital:
Limited partner 790
$ 88,200
(See accompanying notes to unaudited balance sheet.)
Lei" . • 6
Note 1 - Description of the entity:
Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P. (Brenmor) was organized on July 20, 1989 as a
California limited partnership. Brenmor has agreed to acquire all of the cable
television systems of Hearst Cablevision of California, Inc. (the Acquisition). The
Acquisition is scheduled to be consummated in January 1990.
InterMedia Partners, a California limited partnership (InterMedia), is the sole
limited partner and the owner of approximately 79% of the partnership interests of
Brenmor. Brenmor's general partner is Hernandez Communications, Inc., a
Colorado corporation (HCI), whose ' principal shareholder is Ray J. Hernandez.
Brenmor's partnership agreement provides that the limited partner can purchase
the general partner's interest in certain circumstances and in accordance with
specified formulae. Furthermore, the general partner can require the limited
partner to purchase its partnership interest in accordance with specific guidelines.
Note 2 - Summary of significant accounting policies:
Basis of accounting
Brenmor uses the accrual method of accounting.
Deferred financing costs
Costs related to financing the Acquisition are recorded as deferred financing costs
until the Acquisition is consummated and the related debt is funded, at which
time the costs will be amortized over the term of the respective debt instrument.
These amounts have been advanced by the limited partner. Such advances do not
require interest and will be paid from the proceeds of the financing for the
Acquisition.
Deferred investment costs
Costs related to the Acquisition are recorded as
Acquisition is consummated, at which time the
the purchase price to the acquired assets. These
the limited partner.
2
deferred investment costs until the
costs will be allocated as part of
amounts have been advanced by
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: December 29, 1989
ORIGINATING DEPT: Building Department
AGENDA ITEM &(�
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Adoption of 1988 Edition of Uniform Building Codes
Recommended Action: Second reading and adoption of revised ordinance.
Report Summary: The proposed ordinance has been revised to incorporate the
changes made by the Council at the time of the first reading on December 6, 1989.
Section 16- 15.100 (on page 6) no longer requires the installation of a Class C roof in a
non - hazardous fire area. The modifications to Table No. 32 -A of the Uniform Building
Code, as contained in the former draft of the ordinance, have now been deleted.
Without such local modification, Table No. 32 -A will permit the installation of
nonrated roof coverings on single - family dwellings.
Except for the changes noted above, the ordinance is the same
as originally presented to the Council.
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Attachments: Proposed ordinance (Rev. 12/8/89)
Motion and Vote: Ordinance introduced on December 6, 1989, by a vote of 4 -1,
with Councilmember Stutzman dissenting.